Efficacy of Hemospray (TC-325) in the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Efficacy of hemostatic powder monotherapy versus conventional endoscopic treatment for nonvariceal GI bleeding: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hemostatic powder (HP) is a novel hemostasis modality for nonvariceal GI bleeding. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of HP monotherapy versus conventional endoscopic treatment (CET) for nonvariceal GI bleeding.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from inception to October 16, 2023. The primary outcomes were the initial hemostatic rate and the 30-day recurrent bleeding rate. After the meta-analysis, a trial sequential analysis (TSA) was also conducted to decrease the risk of random errors and validate the result.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 8 studies, incorporating 653 patients in total. Given significant heterogeneity, all analyses were segregated into malignancy-related and nonmalignancy-related GI bleeding lesions. For the former, HP monotherapy significantly improved the initial hemostasis rate and 30-day recurrent bleeding rate compared with CET (relative risk [RR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-1.75; P < .001; RR, .32; 95% CI, .12-.86; P = .02, respectively), and TSA supported the results. For nonmalignancy-related GI bleeding, HP monotherapy and CET have similar initial hemostasis and 30-day recurrent bleeding rates (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, .98-1.19; P = .11; RR, 1.15; 95% CI, .46-2.90; P = .76, respectively), but the TSA failed to confirm the results.

CONCLUSIONS

HP monotherapy surpassed CET in terms of the initial hemostasis rate and 30-day recurrent bleeding rate for patients with malignancy-related GI bleeding. However, their relative efficacy for nonmalignancy-related GI bleeding remains unresolved.

Endoscopic Diagnosis, Grading, and Treatment of Bleeding Peptic Ulcer Disease

Peptic ulcer bleeding is a major cause for hospital admissions and has a significant mortality. Endoscopic interventions reduce the risk of rebleeding in high-risk patients and several options are available including injection therapies, thermal therapies, mechanical clips, hemostatic sprays, and endoscopic suturing. Proton-pump inhibitors and Helicobacter pylori treatment are important adjuncts to endoscopic therapy. Endoscopic therapy is indicated in Forrest 1a, 1b, and 2a lesions. Patients with Forrest 2b lesions may do well with proton-pump inhibitor therapy alone but can also be managed by removal of the clot and targeting endoscopic therapy to the underlying lesion.

Hemospray Versus Conventional Therapy for Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hemospray (TC-325; Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC) has been used effectively in hemostasis in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Current guidelines suggest using Hemospray as a temporizing measure or adjunct technique. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Hemospray as a modality for primary hemostasis. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases from inception to August 1, 2022. Three independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles describing the application of Hemospray as the primary method of hemostasis in non-variceal upper GI bleeding patients. Three reviewers independently reviewed and abstracted data and assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes were (1) primary hemostasis rate, (2) rebleeding rate until hospital discharge or death, (3) need for surgery, and (4) overall mortality rate. Of the 211 studies identified, 146 underwent title and abstract review, and four were included in the systematic review. Pooled results from 303 patients showed that compared to standard of care, Hemospray has significantly higher odds of primary hemostasis (OR: 3.48, 95% CI: 1.09-11.18, p = 0.04). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of rebleeding rates (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.24-2.55, p = 0.69), need for surgery (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 0.35-7.41, p = 0.54), or overall mortality (OR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.56-2.08, p = 0.83). This systematic review and meta-analysis prove that Hemospray is a better modality of primary hemostasis in non-variceal upper GI bleeding when used as a primary method. At the same time, there is no significant difference in complications, including rebleeding, need for surgical intervention, and all-cause mortality.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Children: Current Management, Controversies, and Advances

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in children has many causes, with its prevalence varying by age. Often presenting as hematemesis or melena, the initial treatment is stabilization of the patient, including protection of the airway, fluid resuscitation, and a transfusion hemoglobin threshold of 7 g/L. Endoscopy should be performed with the goal of using combinations of therapies to treat a bleeding lesion, generally involving epinephrine injection along with either cautery, hemoclips, or hemospray. This review discusses the diagnosis and treatment of variceal and non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding in children with a focus on current advances in the treatment of severe UGIB.

Hemostatic spray (TC-325) vs. standard endoscopic therapy for non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and study aims  Hemospray (TC-325) is a mineral powder with adsorptive properties designed for use in various gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) scenarios. We conducted a systematic review & meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TC-325 to standard endoscopic therapy (SET) for non-variceal GIB (NVGIB).

Methods  Multiple databases were searched through October 2022. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to determine pooled relative risk (RR) and proportions with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for primary hemostasis, hemostasis failure, 30-day rebleeding, length of stay (LOS), and need for rescue interventions. Heterogeneity was assessed using I ² %.

Results  Five RCTs with 362 patients (TC-325 178, SET 184) – 123 females and 239 males with a mean age 65 ± 16 years). The most common etiologies were peptic ulcer disease (48 %), malignancies (35 %), and others (17 %). Bleeding was characterized as Forrest IA (7 %), IB (73 %), IIA (3 %), and IIB (1 %). SET included epinephrine injection, electrocautery, hemoclips, or a combination. No statistical difference in primary hemostasis between TC-325 compared to SET, RR 1.09 (CI 0.95–1.25; I ² 43), P =  0.2, including patients with oozing/spurting hemorrhage, RR 1.13 (CI 0.98–1.3; I ² 35), P =  0.08. Failure to achieve hemostasis was higher in SET compared to TC-325, RR 0.30 (CI 0.12–0.77, I ² 0), P =  0.01, including patients with oozing/spurting hemorrhage, RR 0.24 (CI 0.09 – 0.63, I ² 0), P =  0.004. We found no difference between the two interventions in terms of rebleeding, RR 1.13 (CI 0.62–2.07, I ² 26), P =  0.8 and LOS, standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.27 (CI, –0.20–0.74; I ² 62), P =  0.3. Finally, pooled rate of rescue interventions (angiography) was statistically higher in SET compared to TC-325, RR 0.68 (CI 0.5–0.94; I ² 0), P =  0.02.

Conclusions  Our analysis shows that for acute NV GIB, including oozing/spurting hemorrhage, TC-325 does not result in higher rates of primary hemostasis compared to SET. However, lower rates of failures were seen with TC-325 than SET. In addition, there was no difference in the two modalities when comparing rates of rebleeding and LOS.

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.