TC-325 application leading to transient obstruction of a post-sphincterotomy biliary orifice

Hemostatic powders for gastrointestinal bleeding: a review of old, new, and emerging agents in a rapidly advancing field

Background and study aims  Hemostatic powders are increasingly used to address limitations in conventional endoscopic techniques for gastrointestinal bleeding. Various agents exist with different compositions, characteristics, efficacy, and adverse events (AEs). We sought to review existing hemostatic powders, from preclinical to established agents. Methods  A literature review on hemostatic powders for gastrointestinal bleeding was undertaken through a MEDLINE search from 2000-2021 and hand searching of articles. Relevant literature was critically appraised and reviewed for mechanism of action, hemostasis and rebleeding rate, factors associated with hemostatic failure, and AEs. Results  The most established agents are TC-325 (Hemospray), EndoClot, and Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS). These agents have been successfully applied to a variety of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding etiologies, in the form of primary, combination, salvage, and bridging therapy. Few AEs have been reported, including visceral perforation, venous embolism, and self-limited abdominal pain. Newer agents include CEGP-003 and UI-EWD, which have shown results similar to those for the older agents in initial clinical studies. All aforementioned powders have high immediate hemostasis rates, particularly in scenarios not amenable to conventional endoscopic methods, but are limited by significant rates of rebleeding. Other treatments include TDM-621 (PuraStat) consisting of a liquid hemostatic agent newly applied to endoscopy and self-propelling thrombin powder (CounterFlow Powder), a preclinical but promising agent. Conclusions  Rapid development of hemostatic powders and growing clinical expertise has established these agents as a valuable strategy in gastrointestinal bleeding. Further research will continue to refine the efficacy and applicability of these agents.

Hemostatic powder spray: a new method for managing gastrointestinal bleeding

Gastrointestinal bleeding is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The management of gastrointestinal bleeding is often challenging, depending on its location and severity. To date, widely accepted hemostatic treatment options include injection of epinephrine and tissue adhesives such as cyanoacrylate, ablative therapy with contact modalities such as thermal coagulation with heater probe and bipolar hemostatic forceps, noncontact modalities such as photodynamic therapy and argon plasma coagulation, and mechanical hemostasis with band ligation, endoscopic hemoclips, and over-the-scope clips. These approaches, albeit effective in achieving hemostasis, are associated with a 5-10% rebleeding risk. New simple, effective, universal, and safe methods are needed to address some of the challenges posed by the current endoscopic hemostatic techniques. The use of a novel hemostatic powder spray appears to be effective and safe in controlling upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Although initial reports of hemostatic powder spray as an innovative approach to manage gastrointestinal bleeding are promising, further studies are needed to support and confirm its efficacy and safety. The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility, clinical efficacy, and safety of hemostatic powder spray (Hemospray, Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA) as a new method for managing gastrointestinal bleeding. In this review article, we performed an extensive literature search summarizing case reports and case series of Hemospray for the management of gastrointestinal bleeding. Indications, features, technique, deployment, success rate, complications, and limitations are discussed. The combined technical and clinical success rate of Hemospray was 88.5% (207/234) among the human subjects and 81.8% (9/11) among the porcine models studied. Rebleeding occurred within 72 hours post-treatment in 38 patients (38/234; 16.2%) and in three porcine models (3/11; 27.3%). No procedure-related adverse events were associated with the use of Hemospray. Hemospray appears to be a safe and effective approach in the management of gastrointestinal bleeding.

Hemostatic powder spray: a new method for managing gastrointestinal bleeding

Gastrointestinal bleeding is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The management of gastrointestinal bleeding is often challenging, depending on its location and severity. To date, widely accepted hemostatic treatment options include injection of epinephrine and tissue adhesives such as cyanoacrylate, ablative therapy with contact modalities such as thermal coagulation with heater probe and bipolar hemostatic forceps, noncontact modalities such as photodynamic therapy and argon plasma coagulation, and mechanical hemostasis with band ligation, endoscopic hemoclips, and over-the-scope clips. These approaches, albeit effective in achieving hemostasis, are associated with a 5-10% rebleeding risk. New simple, effective, universal, and safe methods are needed to address some of the challenges posed by the current endoscopic hemostatic techniques. The use of a novel hemostatic powder spray appears to be effective and safe in controlling upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Although initial reports of hemostatic powder spray as an innovative approach to manage gastrointestinal bleeding are promising, further studies are needed to support and confirm its efficacy and safety. The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility, clinical efficacy, and safety of hemostatic powder spray (Hemospray, Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA) as a new method for managing gastrointestinal bleeding. In this review article, we performed an extensive literature search summarizing case reports and case series of Hemospray for the management of gastrointestinal bleeding. Indications, features, technique, deployment, success rate, complications, and limitations are discussed. The combined technical and clinical success rate of Hemospray was 88.5% (207/234) among the human subjects and 81.8% (9/11) among the porcine models studied. Rebleeding occurred within 72 hours post-treatment in 38 patients (38/234; 16.2%) and in three porcine models (3/11; 27.3%). No procedure-related adverse events were associated with the use of Hemospray. Hemospray appears to be a safe and effective approach in the management of gastrointestinal bleeding.

Endoscopic haemostasis: an overview of procedures and clinical scenarios

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding is among the most urgent situations in daily gastroenterological practise. Endoscopy plays a key role in the diagnosis and treatment of such cases. Endoscopic haemostasis is probably the most important technical challenge that must be mastered by gastroenterologists. It is essential for both the management of acute gastrointestinal haemorrhage and the prevention of bleeding during high-risk endoscopic procedures. During the last decade, endoscopic haemostasis techniques and tools have grown in parallel with the number of devices available for endotherapy. Haemostatic powders, over-the-scope clips, haemostatic forceps, and other emerging technologies have changed daily practise and complement the standard available armamentarium (injectable, thermal, and mechanical therapy). Although there is a lack of strong evidence-based information on these procedures because of the difficulty in designing statistically powerful trials on this topic, physicians must be aware of all available devices to be able to choose the best haemostatic tool for the most effective procedure. We herein present an overview of procedures and clinical scenarios to optimise the management of gastrointestinal bleeding in daily practise.

Role of hemostatic powders in the endoscopic management of gastrointestinal bleeding

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding (AGIB) is a prevalent condition with significant influence on healthcare costs. Endoscopy is essential for the management of AGIB with a pivotal role in diagnosis, risk stratification and management. Recently, hemostatic powders have been added to our endoscopic armamentarium to treat gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. These substances are intended to control active bleeding by delivering a powdered product over the bleeding site that forms a solid matrix with a tamponade function. Local activation of platelet aggregation and coagulation cascade may be also boosted. There are currently three powders commercially available: hemostatic agent TC-325 (Hemospray(®)), EndoClot™ polysaccharide hemostatic system, and Ankaferd Bloodstopper(®). Although the available evidence is based on short series of cases and there is no randomized controlled trial yet, these powders seem to be effective in controlling GI bleeding from a variety of origins with a very favorable side effects profile. They can be used either as a primary therapy or a second-line treatment, and they seem to be especially indicated in cases of cancer-related bleeding and lesions with difficult access. In this review, we will comment on the mechanism of action, efficacy, safety and technical challenges of the use of powders in several clinical scenarios and we will try to define the main current indications of use and propose new lines of research in this area.

Safety and efficacy of Hemospray® in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Hemospray (Cook Medical, USA) has recently been approved in Canada for the management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestional bleeding (UGIB).

OBJECTIVE

To review the authors' experience with the safety and efficacy of Hemospray for treating UGIB.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who required endoscopic evaluation for suspected UGIB and were treated with Hemospray.

RESULTS

From February 2012 to July 2013, 19 patients (mean age 67.6 years) with UGIB were treated with Hemospray. A bleeding lesion was identified in the esophagus in one (5.3%) patient, the stomach in five (26.3%) and duodenum in 13 (68.4%). Bleeding was secondary to peptic ulcers in 12 (63.2%) patients, Dieulafoy lesions in two (10.5%), mucosal erosion in one (5.3%), angiodysplastic lesions in one (5.3%), ampullectomy in one (5.3%), polypectomy in one (5.3%) and an unidentified lesion in one (5.3%). The lesions showed spurting hemorrhage in four (21.1%) patients, oozing hemorrhage in 11 (57.9%) and no active bleeding in four (21.1%). Hemospray was administered as monotherapy in two (10.5%) patients, first-line modality in one (5.3%) and rescue modality in 16 (84.2%). Hemospray was applied prophylactically to nonbleeding lesions in four (21.1%) patients and therapeutically to bleeding lesions in 15 (78.9%). Acute hemostasis was achieved in 14 of 15 (93.3%) patients. Rebleeding within seven days occurred in seven of 18 (38.9%) patients. Potential adverse events occurred in two (10.5%) patients and included visceral perforation and splenic infarct. Mortality occurred in five (26.3%) patients but the cause of death was unrelated to gastrointestinal bleeding with the exception of one patient who developed hemoperitoneum.

CONCLUSIONS

The high rates of both acute hemostasis and recurrent bleeding suggest that Hemospray may be used in high-risk cases as a temporary measure or a bridge toward more definitive therapy.

Safety analysis of a hemostatic powder in a porcine model of acute severe gastric bleeding

BACKGROUND

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding is a common condition that requires prompt lifesaving therapy and traditional endoscopic treatments require high technical proficiency to perform.

AIMS

This study was conducted to identify any local or systemic histopathologic effects of a hemostatic powder in a porcine model of active, severe, non-variceal UGI hemorrhage.

METHODS

This prospective, non-blinded animal study was performed in accordance with Good Laboratory Practice and Animal Care and Use Guidelines. Six animals underwent gastrotomy and creation of a looped vascular bundle, which was placed into the stomach lumen. The transplanted vascular bundle was punctured with an endoscopic needle-knife to create Forrest grade Ia or Ib bleeding. The hemostatic powder was then applied until hemostasis was achieved.

RESULTS

Initial hemostasis was achieved in all animals. Results of pre- and post-treatment coagulation studies were similar. All animals survived at least 9 days post-procedure. The hemostatic powder was not found in any local, regional, or systemic tissues. Gross and histologic analysis of systemic organs showed no infarct, particulate, or embolic effects. No gross or microscopic necropsy findings were treatment-related.

CONCLUSIONS

The hemostatic powder achieved initial hemostasis (even in animals with spurting arterial bleeding) with no bowel obstruction or unintended luminal effects, no local or regional particulate effects, no systemic embolic effects, and no systemic coagulopathic effects.