Hemospray treatment is effective for lower gastrointestinal bleeding

Hemostatic efficacy and safety of the hemostatic powder UI-EWD in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding

Background and aims

Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a common cause of emergency hospitalization and may require readmission for re-bleeding. Recently, a novel endoscopic hemostatic powder (UI-EWD/Nexpowder™, Nextbiomedical, Incheon, South Korea) was developed and applied for the control of LGIB. The aim of this study was to evaluate the hemostatic efficacy and long-term safety of UI-EWD in LGIB.

Patients and methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of LGIB at a single tertiary center in south Korea. One hundred and sixty-seven consecutive patients with LGIB who were initially successful in endoscopic hemostasis were included and divided into the conventional treatment group (n = 112) and the UI-EWD therapy group (n = 55; 38 patients with conventional treatment and 17 patients with UI-EWD alone). The success rate of hemostasis, adverse events related to UI-EWD, and re-bleeding rate were evaluated.

Results

The incidence of endoscopic hemostasis applied to the hepatic flexure (7.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.011) and larger than 4 cm (25.5% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.002) were significantly higher in the UI-EWD group than in the conventional therapy group. The cumulative rebleeding rate within 28 days in the UI-EWD group was 5.5% (3/55), which was significantly lower than that in the conventional treatment group (17.0% [19/112]; p = 0.039). No UI-EWD-related adverse events were recorded.

Conclusion

Based on our results, application of UI-EWD in LGIB showed promising results for the prevention of re-bleeding, especially in locations where it is difficult to approach or cases with more bleeding. There were no significant complications, such as perforation or embolism. In particular, UI-EWD should be considered first for anatomical or technical impediments to endoscopic access in LGIB.

Analysis on the healing of gastrointestinal ulceration by using Hemospray

Healing of gastrointestinal ulcers after Hemospray application was reported in literature. The pathophysiological mechanism of action of hemostatic powders is not elucidated so far. A prospective animal model was performed to evaluate the effect of Hemospray application on the healing process of artificially induced ulcers of the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. In 10 pigs, 20 ulcers were created in each the upper and the lower gastrointestinal tract by endoscopic mucosal resection. 50% of the pigs were immediately treated with Hemospray application, the others were not treated. Ulcer size was measured endoscopically on day 0, 2, and 7. On day 7 the ulcers were histopathological evaluated for capillary ingrowth and the thickness of the collagen layer. After 7 days the sizes of the ulcers decreased significantly (stomach: − 22.8% with Hemospray application, − 19% without Hemospray application; rectum: − 50.8% with Hemospray application, − 49.5% without Hemospray application; p = 0.005–0.037), but without significant difference between both groups. This study shows no significant effect of the hemostatic powder Hemospray on ulcer healing in the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract compared with untreated controls, neither harmful nor beneficial. However, some trends merit further trials in patients and may indicate a possible mechanism of accelerated mucosal healing.

Effectiveness of hemostatic powders in lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of hemostatic powders in the management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). We aimed to provide a pooled estimate of their effectiveness and safety based on the current literature. Patients and methods  Literature review was based on computerized bibliographic search of the main databases through to December 2020. Immediate hemostasis, rebleeding rate, adverse events, and mortality were the outcomes of the analysis. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model. Results  A total of 9 studies with 194 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 95 % of patients (95 % confidence interval [CI] 91.6 %-98.5 %), with no difference based on treatment strategy or bleeding etiology. Pooled 7- and 30-day rebleeding rates were 10.9 % (95 %CI 4.2 %-17.6 %) and 14.3 % (95 %CI 7.3 %-21.2 %), respectively. Need for embolization and surgery were 1.7 % (95 %CI 0 %-3.5 %) and 2.4 % (95 %CI 0.3 %-4.6 %), respectively. Overall, two patients (1.9 %, 95 %CI 0 %-3.8 %) experienced mild abdominal pain after powder application, and three bleeding-related deaths (2.3 %, 95 %CI 0.2 %-4.3 %) were registered in the included studies. Conclusion  Novel hemostatic powders represent a user-friendly and effective tool in the management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

Diagnosis and Management of Non-Variceal Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage: A Review of Current Guidelines and Future Perspectives

Non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide which is encountered in the ambulatory and hospital settings. Hemorrhage form the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is categorized as upper GIB, small bowel bleeding (also formerly referred to as obscure GIB) or lower GIB. Although the etiologies of GIB are variable, a strong, consistent risk factor is use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Advances in the endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of GIB have led to improved outcomes. We present an updated review of the current practices regarding the diagnosis and management of non-variceal GIB, and possible future directions.

Endoscopic Therapy for Acute Diverticular Bleeding

Diverticular bleeding accounts for approximately 26%–40% of the cases of lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Rupture of the vasa recta at the neck or dome of the diverticula can be the cause of this bleeding. Colonoscopy aids in not only the diagnosis but also the treatment of diverticular bleeding after a steady bowel preparation. Endoscopic hemostasis involves several methods, such as injection/thermal contact therapy, clipping, endoscopic band ligation (EBL), hemostatic powder, and over-the-scope clips. Each endoscopic method can provide a secure initial hemostasis. With regard to the clinical outcomes after an endoscopic treatment, the methods reportedly have no significant differences in the initial hemostasis and early recurring bleeding; however, EBL might prevent the need for transcatheter arterial embolization or surgery. In contrast, the long-term outcomes of the endoscopic treatments, such as a late bleeding and recurrent bleeding at 1 and 2 years, are not well known for diverticular bleeding. With regard to a cure for diverticular bleeding, there should be an improvement in both the endoscopic methods and the multilateral perspectives, such as diet, medicines, interventional approaches, and surgery.

Devices for endoscopic hemostasis of nonvariceal GI bleeding (with videos)

Background

Endoscopic intervention is often the first line of therapy for GI nonvariceal bleeding. Although some of the devices and techniques used for this purpose have been well studied, others are relatively new, with few available outcomes data.

Methods

In this document, we review devices and techniques for endoscopic treatment of nonvariceal GI bleeding, the evidence regarding their efficacy and safety, and financial considerations for their use.

Results

Devices used for endoscopic hemostasis in the GI tract can be classified into injection devices (needles), thermal devices (multipolar/bipolar probes, hemostatic forceps, heater probe, argon plasma coagulation, radiofrequency ablation, and cryotherapy), mechanical devices (clips, suturing devices, banding devices, stents), and topical devices (hemostatic sprays).

Conclusions

Endoscopic evaluation and treatment remains a cornerstone in the management of nonvariceal upper- and lower-GI bleeding. A variety of devices is available for hemostasis of bleeding lesions in the GI tract. Other than injection therapy, which should not be used as monotherapy, there are few compelling data that strongly favor any one device over another. For endoscopists, the choice of a hemostatic device should depend on the type and location of the bleeding lesion, the availability of equipment and expertise, and the cost of the device.

Early application of haemostatic powder added to standard management for oesophagogastric variceal bleeding: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) requires early therapeutic management by experienced endoscopists that often poses logistical challenges for hospitals. We assessed a different management concept with early application of haemostatic powder-which does not require high endoscopic expertise-added to conventional management in a randomised trial.

METHODS

Cirrhotic patients with AVB received standard medical therapy and were randomised to either immediate endoscopy with haemostatic powder application within 2 hours of admission, followed by early elective endoscopy on the next day, that is, within 12-24 hours of admission for definitive treatment (study group) or to early elective endoscopy only (control group). In both groups, failures to achieve clinical haemostasis until the time of early elective endoscopy underwent rescue endoscopy with attempted conventional haemostasis. Primary outcome was endoscopic haemostasis at the elective endoscopy.

RESULTS

Of 86 randomised patients with AVB, 5/43 in the study group required rescue endoscopy for failure of controlling spurting bleeding (n=4) after powder application or for early bleeding recurrence in one patient who died before repeating rescue endoscopy. In the control group, 13/43 patients required rescue endoscopic haemostasis for failure of clinical haemostasis (12%vs30%, p=0.034). In the remaining patients, early elective endoscopic haemostasis was achieved in all 38 patients in the study group, while all remaining 30 patients in the control group had fresh gastric blood or (10%) spurting bleeding at early elective endoscopy with successful haemostasis in all of them. Six-week survival was significantly improved in the study group (7%vs30%, p=0.006).

CONCLUSION

The new concept of immediate powder application improves early clinical and endoscopic haemostasis. This simplified endoscopic approach may have an impact on early and 6-week survival.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03061604.

Comparison of Hemospray® and Endoclot™ for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common indication for endoscopy. For refractory cases, hemostatic powders (HP) represent “touch-free” agents.

AIM

To analyze short term (ST-within 72 h-) and long-term (LT-within 30 d-) success for achieving hemostasis with HP and to directly compare the two agents Hemospray (HS) and Endoclot (EC).

METHODS

HP was applied in 154 consecutive patients (mean age 67 years) with GI bleeding. Patients were followed up for 1 mo (mean follow-up: 3.2 mo).

RESULTS

Majority of applications were in upper GI tract (89%) with following bleeding sources: peptic ulcer disease (35%), esophageal varices (7%), tumor bleeding (11.7%), reflux esophagitis (8.7%), diffuse bleeding and erosions (15.3%). Overall ST success was achieved in 125 patients (81%) and LT success in 81 patients (67%). Re-bleeding occurred in 27% of all patients. In 72 patients (47%), HP was applied as a salvage hemostatic therapy, here ST and LT success were 81% and 64%, with re-bleeding in 32%. As a primary hemostatic therapy, ST and LT success were 82% and 69%, with re-bleeding occurring in 22%. HS was more frequently applied for upper GI bleeding (P = 0.04)

CONCLUSION

Both HP allow for effective hemostasis with no differences in ST, LT success and re-bleeding.

Clinical features of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and its diagnostic strategy with emergency enteroscopy

AIM

To investigate the clinical features of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and its diagnostic strategy with emergency enteroscopy.

METHODS

Two hundred and ten patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding at our hospital from January 2014 to December 2017 were selected, and the clinical features of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding were analyzed. The patients were then divided into two groups based on the bowel preparation method used: a cleansing enema group (169 cases) and an oral cathartic group (41 cases). The influence of intestinal tract cleanliness on emergency enteroscopy diagnosis was then analyzed.

RESULTS

The ratio of males to females in 210 patients was 1.50:1. The elderly, middle-aged, and young patients accounted for 45.71% (96/210), 29.05% (61/210), and 25.24% (53/210), respectively. There were 10.48% of hidden blood loss and 89.52% of overt blood loss. The hemorrhage was mostly common with melena, bright red bloody stools, and dark red bloody stools. The bleeding was mostly caused by intestinal inflammation or infection (35.71%) and polyps of the rectum and colon (20.95%). Colorectal cancer, intestinal inflammation or infection, and polyps of the rectum and colon were main causes in the elderly group. Intestinal inflammation or infection, polyps of the rectum and colon, and colorectal cancer were main causes in the middle-aged group. Intestinal inflammation or infection, polyps of the rectum and colon, and vascular disease were main causes in the young group. The excellent rate of intestinal tract cleanliness in the cleansing enema group was lower than that of the oral cathartic group (P < 0.05). The diagnostic accuracy of enteroscopy with excellent, good, and poor cleanliness was 91.04% (61/67), 80.85% (38/47), and 52.42% (65/124), respectively. The diagnostic accordance rate of enteroscopy with excellent or good cleanliness was higher than that of enteroscopy with poor cleanliness (P < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in the diagnostic accordance rate between enteroscopy with excellent and good cleanliness (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Acute lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage is common in males and the elderly population. Main causes are intestinal inflammation and polyps of the rectum and colon, and there is certain difference in the causes of bleeding in patients of different ages. Hemorrhage is mostly common with melena, bright red bloody stools, and dark red bloody stools. Good intestinal tract cleanliness can increase the diagnostic rate of emergency enteroscopy, and the intestinal tract cleanliness associated with oral cathartic is better than that of cleansing enema. Therefore, based on patient's hemodynamic stability, using bowel preparation with oral cathartic can improve the diagnostic accordance rate.

Hemospray as the Initial Treatment of a Lower Gastrointestinal Bleed Resulting from Stercoral Ulceration

Stercoral ulceration, an uncommon complication of constipation and fecal impaction, can present as a significant lower gastrointestinal bleed. Endoscopic management of this complication is rarely described in the literature. We describe the first documented case of an individual with massive hematochezia in the setting of stercoral ulceration being managed with Hemospray (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana).

Effectiveness of TC-325 (Hemospray) for treatment of diffuse or refractory upper gastrointestinal bleeding - a single center experience

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 TC-325 (Hemospray, Cook Medical) is a powder agent for endoscopic hemostasis in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Although most publications are based on case-reports and retrospective studies, data on efficacy are promising. Here we report our experience with TC-325 for diffuse or refractory UGIB.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 Data on patients receiving TC-325 for endoscopic hemostasis from November 2013 to February 2017 at our center were analyzed retrospectively. Primary endpoints were technical success (successful immediate hemostasis) and clinical success (effective hemostasis and no recurrent bleeding). Secondary endpoints were recurrent bleeding within 3 and 7 days, hospital mortality and TC-325 associated complications. TC-325 was used for bleeding not amenable to standard endoscopic treatment (e. g. diffuse bleeding) or as salvage therapy after failure of conventional methods.

RESULTS

 Fifty-two patients received TC-325 treatment. Most of the patients were treated for peptic ulcer bleeding (18/52 patients, 34.6 %) and post-interventional bleeding (13/52 patients, 25 %). Hemospray was used in 23/52 (44.2 %) patients as monotherapy and in 29/52 (55.8 %) patients as a salvage therapy. Application of the powder on the bleeding source was successful in all patients with no therapy-related adverse events (AEs). Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 51/52 (98.1 %) patients. Recurrent bleeding within 3 and 7 days was observed in 22/51 and 25/51 patients respectively (43.1 % and 49 %). The overall clinical success was 56.9 % on day 3 and 51 % on day 7. Total mortality was 15.4 % (8 patients), bleeding associated mortality was 3.8 % (2 patients). There were no therapy-related AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

 TC-325 showed a high technical success rate as monotherapy for bleeding sources not amenable to standard methods or as an "add-on" therapy after unsuccessful hemostasis. However, rebleeding was frequent in this cohort and further studies are warranted to exactly define a treatment algorithm for TC-325 use.

The Application of Hemospray in Gastrointestinal Bleeding during Emergency Endoscopy

Introduction. Gastrointestinal bleeding represents the main indication for emergency endoscopy (EE). Lately, several hemostatic powders have been released to facilitate EE. Methods. We evaluated all EE in which Hemospray was used as primary or salvage therapy, with regard to short- and long-term hemostasis and complications. Results. We conducted 677 EE in 474 patients (488 examinations in 344 patients were upper GI endoscopies). Hemospray was applied during 35 examinations in 27 patients (19 males), 33 during upper and 2 during lower endoscopy. It was used after previous treatment in 21 examinations (60%) and in 14 (40%) as salvage therapy. Short-term success was reached in 34 of 35 applications (97.1%), while long-term success occurred in 23 applications (65.7%). Similar long-term results were found after primary application (64,3%) or salvage therapy (66,7%). Rebleeding was found in malignant and extended ulcers. One major adverse event (2.8%) occurred with gastric perforation after Hemospray application. Discussion. Hemospray achieved short-term hemostasis in virtually all cases. The long-term effect is mainly determined by the type of bleeding source, but not whether it was applied as first line or salvage therapy. But, even in the failures, patients had benefit from hemodynamic stabilization and consecutive interventions in optimized conditions.

[Endoscopic management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding]

Endoscopic hemostasis is the daily challenge that must be mastered by gastroenterologists. An emergency colonoscopy is the procedure of choice for lower gastrointestinal bleeding because of the diagnostic and therapeutic potential. Colonoscopy should be performed after oral preparation with 4-6 l polyethylene glycol solution within 12 h. In the case of massive hematochezia, colonoscopy without oral preparation employinga mechanical pump is possible and is not associated with a higher rate of complications. Many different endoscopic techniques are available (injection therapy, hemoclips, thermal coagulation, topical hemostatic substances). The suitable and most effective method must be chosen depending on the source of 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.

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.

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.