Safety and efficacy of Hemospray® in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Post-polypectomy colorectal bleeding: current strategies and the way forward

Post-endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) bleeding, or clinically significant post-EMR bleeding, is influenced by factors such as polyp size, right-sided colonic lesions, laterally spreading tumors, anticoagulant use, and comorbidities like cardiovascular or chronic renal disease. The optimal prophylactic therapy for post-EMR bleeding remains unknown, with no consensus on specific criteria for its application. Moreover, prophylactic measures, including clipping, suturing, and coagulation, have produced mixed results. Selective clipping in high-risk patients is cost-effective, whereas universal clipping is not. Studies and meta-analyses indicate that routine prophylactic clipping does not generally reduce post-polypectomy bleeding but may be beneficial in cases of large proximal lesions. Some studies have revealed that the post-polypectomy bleeding risk after EMR of transverse colonic lesions is lower than that of the ascending colon and caecum, suggesting limited efficacy of clipping in the transverse colon. Cost-effectiveness studies support selective clipping in high-risk groups, and newer static agents such as PuraStat are alternatives; however, their cost-effectiveness is undetermined. Further research is required to establish clear guidelines and refine prophylactic strategies to prevent post-EMR bleeding.

The efficacy of Hemospray in managing bleeding related to gastrointestinal tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding stemming from malignant tumors is increasingly recognized, due to advancements in oncology and detection methods. Traditional endoscopic hemostatic techniques have shown variable success rates in managing hemorrhagic GI neoplasms. Hemospray, an emerging endoscopic hemostatic powder, offers promise in treating upper GI bleeding, potentially extending its utility to neoplastic bleeding sites. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate Hemospray's efficacy in managing bleeding related to GI tumors.

METHODS

We searched Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Medline/PubMed, and Cochrane. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies focusing on malignancy-related GI bleeding and interventions utilizing Hemospray. Comparative studies contrasted Hemospray with standard endoscopic treatments (SET), while noncomparative studies assessed Hemospray's efficacy independently. The risk of bias was assessed using appropriate tools, and statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager and open Meta analyst software.

RESULTS

We included 19 studies in our meta-analysis. Hemospray demonstrated higher rates of immediate hemostasis compared to SET (odds ratio: 17.14, 95% confidence interval: 4.27-68.86), with consistent outcomes across studies. Rebleeding rates at 14 and 30 days were comparable between Hemospray and SET groups, suggesting similar efficacy in long-term hemostasis. Hemospray showed a significantly lower need for nonendoscopic hemostasis compared to SET (odds ratio: 0.51, 95% confidence interval: 0.30-0.87), indicating a potential reduction in supplementary interventions. Safety assessments revealed no confirmed adverse events directly linked to Hemospray.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis highlights Hemospray's efficacy in achieving immediate hemostasis in GI tumor-related bleeding, with potential benefits in reducing supplementary interventions and improving patient outcomes. Despite comparable rebleeding rates, Hemospray emerges as a valuable adjunctive therapy in managing malignant GI bleeding.

UI-EWD hemostatic powder in the management of refractory lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

Lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a common cause of emergency hospitalization and may require readmission for re-bleeding. A novel adhesive endoscopic hemostatic powder (UI-EWD/NexpowderTM, Nextbiomedical, Incheon, South Korea) has been developed and recently utilized for LGIB hemostasis. The aim of the current study was to assess the efficacy and safety of UI-EWD as a rescue therapy for the treatment of refractory LGIB.

METHODS

In this study, a total of 59 consecutive patients with LGIB who experienced initial hemostasis failure with conventional endoscopic therapy were enrolled into this multicenter single-arm study. These patients subsequently underwent UI-EWD application for the refractory LGIB hemostasis. We evaluated the success rate of hemostasis, re-bleeding rate within 30 d, and adverse events related to UI-EWD.

RESULTS

UI-EWD was successfully administered to the bleeding sites in all enrolled refractory bleeding patients. Hemostasis was achieved in the entirety of the 59 patients (100%). The cumulative re-bleeding rate within 30 d was 8.5% (5/59). There were no UI-EWD-related adverse events, such as perforation nor embolism.

CONCLUSION

Based on our results, the utilization of UI-EWD demonstrated a remarkable success rate in achieving hemostasis for refractory LGIB, while also exhibiting promising outcomes in reducing the re-bleeding rate within a 30-day period. Particularly, UI-EWD exhibits a favorable safety profile across all segments of the colon in cases of refractory LGIB.

Advancements in endoscopic hemostasis for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Traditionally, through-the-scope (TTS) clips, thermal therapy, and injection therapies are used to treat GI bleeding. In this review, we provide an overview of novel endoscopic treatments that can be used to achieve hemostasis. Specifically, we discuss the efficacy and applicability of over-the-scope clips, hemostatic agents, TTS doppler ultrasound, and endoscopic ultrasound, each of which offer an effective method of reducing rates of GI rebleeding.

Use of TC-325 Hemostatic Powder as a Rescue Monotherapy for Management of Rectal Variceal Bleed

The use of the endoscopic hemostatic powder TC-325 as a rescue monotherapy or as an adjunct agent in achieving hemostasis has been studied in upper gastrointestinal variceal bleeds and nonvariceal lower gastrointestinal bleeds with promising results. In this report, we describe a case of a successful use of TC-325 as rescue monotherapy to manage rectal variceal bleeding in a patient with alcohol-related cirrhosis with no report of bleeding recurrence and no side effects within the first 7 days, 30 days, or 6 months.

New Alternative? Self-Assembling Peptide in Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common and potentially fatal condition with all-cause mortality ranging from 3 to 10%. Endoscopic therapy traditionally involves mechanical, thermal, and injection therapies. Recently, self-assembling peptide (SAP) has become increasingly available in the United States. When applied to an affected area, this gel forms an extracellular matrix-type structure allowing for hemostasis. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of this modality in GIB.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search of major databases from inception to Nov 2022. The primary outcomes assessed were the success of hemostasis, rebleeding rates, and adverse events. The secondary outcomes assessed were successful hemostasis with monotherapy with SAP and combined therapy, which may include mechanical, injection, and thermal therapies. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

The analysis included 7 studies with 427 patients. 34% of the patients were on anticoagulation or antiplatelet agents. SAP application was technically successful in all patients. The calculated pooled rate of successful hemostasis was 93.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84.7-97.0, I2 = 73.6), and rebleeding rates were 8.9% (95% CI 5.3-14.4, I2 = 55.8). The pooled rates of hemostasis with SAP monotherapy and combined therapy were similar. No adverse events were noted related to SAP.

CONCLUSION

SAP appears to be a safe and effective treatment modality for patients with GIB. This modality provides an added advantage of improved visualization over the novel spray-based modalities. Further, prospective, or randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings.

Hemostatic Powders in Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: The Open Questions

Hemostatic powder (HP) is a relatively recent addition to the arsenal of hemostatic endoscopic procedures (HEPs) for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) due to benign and malignant lesions. Five types of HP are currently available: TC-325 (Hemospray™), EndoClot™, Ankaferd Blood Stopper^®, and, more recently, UI-EWD (Nexpowder^TM) and CEGP-003 (CGBio™). HP acts as a mechanical barrier and/or promotes platelet activation and coagulation cascade. HP may be used in combination with or as rescue therapy in case of failure of conventional HEPs (CHEPs) and also as monotherapy in large, poorly accessible lesions with multiple bleeding sources. Although the literature on HP is abundant, randomized controlled trials are scant, and some questions remain open. While HP is highly effective in inducing immediate hemostasis in GIB, the rates of rebleeding reported in different studies are very variable, and conditions affecting the stability of hemostasis have not yet been fully elucidated. It is not established whether HP as monotherapy is appropriate in severe GIB, such as spurting peptic ulcers, or should be used only as rescue or adjunctive therapy. Finally, as it can be sprayed on large areas, HP could become the gold standard in malignancy-related GIB, which is often nonresponsive or not amenable to treatment with CHEPs as a result of multiple bleeding points and friable surfaces. This is a narrative review that provides an overview of currently available data and the open questions regarding the use of HP in the management of non-variceal upper GIB due to benign and malignant diseases.

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 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.

Comparison of a Hemostatic Powder and Standard Treatment in the Control of Active Bleeding From Upper Nonvariceal Lesions : A Multicenter, Noninferiority, Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of the hemostatic powder TC-325 as a single endoscopic treatment for acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To compare TC-325 with standard endoscopic hemostatic treatments in the control of active bleeding from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal causes.

DESIGN

One-sided, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02534571).

SETTING

University teaching hospitals in the Asia-Pacific region.

PATIENTS

224 adult patients with acute bleeding from a nonvariceal cause on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

INTERVENTION

TC-325 (n = 111) or standard hemostatic treatment (n = 113).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was control of bleeding within 30 days. Other outcomes included failure to control bleeding during index endoscopy, recurrent bleeding after initial hemostasis, further interventions, blood transfusion, hospitalization, and death.

RESULTS

224 patients were enrolled (136 with gastroduodenal ulcers [60.7%], 33 with tumors [14.7%], and 55 with other causes of bleeding [24.6%]). Bleeding was controlled within 30 days in 100 of 111 patients (90.1%) in the TC-325 group and 92 of 113 (81.4%) in the standard treatment group (risk difference, 8.7 percentage points [1-sided 95% CI, 0.95 percentage point]). There were fewer failures of hemostasis during index endoscopy with TC-325 (3 [2.7%] vs. 11 [9.7%]; odds ratio, 0.26 [CI, 0.07 to 0.95]). Recurrent bleeding within 30 days did not differ between groups (9 [8.1%] vs. 10 [8.8%]). The need for further interventions also did not differ between groups (further endoscopic treatment: 8 [7.2%] vs. 10 [8.8%]; angiography: 2 [1.8%] vs. 4 [3.5%]; surgery: 1 [0.9%] vs. 0). There were 14 deaths in each group (12.6% vs. 12.4%).

LIMITATION

Clinicians were not blinded to treatment.

CONCLUSION

TC-325 is not inferior to standard treatment in the endoscopic control of bleeding from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal causes.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

General Research Fund to the University Grants Committee, Hong Kong SAR Government.

Efficacy of hemostatic powders as monotherapy or rescue therapy in gastrointestinal bleeding related to neoplastic or non-neoplastic lesions

BACKGROUND

Hemostatic powder (HP) in gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is mainly used as rescue therapy after failure of conventional hemostatic procedures (CHP).

AIM

To define the best field of application and the efficacy of HP as first choice monotherapy or rescue therapy.

METHODS

We compared the efficacy of HP monotherapy, HP rescue therapy, and CHP in the management of active GIB due to neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions.

RESULTS

A total of 108 patients, 43 treated with HP as either first choice or rescue therapy and 65 with CHP, were included in the study. The most frequent sources of bleeding were peptic ulcer and malignancy. Immediate hemostasis rates were: HP monotherapy = 100% in peptic ulcer and 100% in malignancy; HP rescue therapy = 93.2% in peptic ulcer and 85.7% in malignancy; CHP = 77.9% in peptic ulcer and 41.7 in malignancy. Definitive hemostasis rates were: HP monotherapy = 50% in peptic ulcer and 45.5% in malignancy; HP rescue therapy = 73.3% in peptic ulcer and 85.7% in malignancy; CHP = 69.1% in peptic ulcer and 33.3% in malignancy. No difference was found in terms of additional intervention between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

HP is highly effective as monotherapy and rescue therapy in GIB. GIB related to malignancy may be the best field of application of HP, but confirmatory studies are necessary.

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

BACKGROUND

Hemospray (TC-325) is now approved for use in gastrointestinal bleeding. Data regarding their use pattern, efficacy, complications, and impact on clinical outcomes is limited.

METHODS

Electronic search from relevant databases was conducted up to January 2019. Etiologies, therapy characteristics, hemostasis rates, rebleed rates, additional procedures, complications and mortality rates were extracted and pooled.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven articles were included for analysis (n=1916). Pooled hemostasis was 94.5%. Pooled rebleed rate within 3 days was 9.9%, and within 30 days 17.6%. Pooled repeat Hemospray use was 13.6%. Radiology guided embolization was required with rate of 3.3% and surgery at rate of 4.7%. Rate of adverse events directly attributable to Hemospray was 0.7%. 30-day mortality was 11.8%. Comparison of conventional endoscopic therapy to Hemospray augmented therapy demonstrated that Hemospray therapy had increased immediate hemostasis [odds ratio (OR) 4.40]. There was no difference in rate of rebleeding at 8 days (OR 0.52) or overall mortality at 30 days (OR 0.53). Benign nonvariceal bleeds, malignant bleeds, and postprocedural bleeds had similar rates of hemostasis but rebleed rate at 30 days was less for postprocedural bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of Hemospray to conventional therapy appears to increase immediate hemostasis but does not decrease rebleeding or mortality. As such, the use of Hemospray will likely be limited to clinical situations requiring urgent, but temporary, hemostasis to bridge to more definitive therapy.

Severe upper gastrointestinal bleeding is halted by endoscopically delivered self-propelling thrombin powder: A porcine pilot study

Background and study aims  Hemostatic powders have emerged recently to treat upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Previously, we developed a novel self-propelling thrombin powder (SPTP) that effectively manages external pulsatile arterial bleed without compression, by effervescing and carrying thrombin into the wound. Here, we tested if SPTP, sprayed endoscopically, can manage severe UGIB in a live porcine model. Materials and methods  Anesthetized pigs underwent laparotomy to insert the gastroepiploic vascular bundles into the stomach lumen via a gastrotomy. Bleeding was initiated endoscopically in the stomach by needle knife. SPTP was delivered to the site of bleeding from a CO ₂ -powered spray device using a 7 FR catheter. Successful primary hemostasis, time to hemostasis, and the mass of SPTP delivered were measured. Results  Hemostasis was achieved at all bleeding sites using SPTP. Mean time to hemostasis was 4.2 ± 0.9 minutes (mean ± standard error of the mean, n = 12). The average mass of SPTP delivered was 2.4 ± 0.6 g. Conclusions  In this pilot study, SPTP successfully stopped 12 cases of severe UGIB, demonstrating early promise asa novel hemostatic powder.

The Efficacy and Safety of Hemospray for the Management of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

GOALS/BACKGROUND

Hemospray is a new hemostatic powder recently approved for endoscopic hemostasis in gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Data are limited in terms of its clinical outcomes, and its role in the treatment algorithm of GI bleeds. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the clinical performance of Hemospray in the management of GI bleeding.

STUDY

We searched multiple databases from inception through March 2019 to identify studies that reported on the clinical outcomes of Hemospray in GI bleeding. The primary outcome was pooled rates of clinical success after the application of Hemospray in GI bleeding. The secondary outcomes were pooled rebleeding rates and adverse events after use of Hemospray.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies, 814 patients, of which 212 patients were treated with Hemospray as monotherapy, and 602 patients were treated with Hemospray with conventional hemostatic techniques. Overall pooled clinical success after the application of Hemospray was 92% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 87%-96%; I2=70.4%]. Overall pooled early rebleeding rates after application of Hemospray was 20% (95% CI, 16%-26%; I2=54%). Overall pooled delayed rebleeding rates after the application of Hemospray was 23% (95% CI, 16%-31%; I2=34.9%). There was no statistical difference in clinical success (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.08; P=0.34) and early rebleeding (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75-1.07; P=0.214) in studies that compared the use of Hemospray as monotherapy versus combination therapy with conventional therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemospray is highly effective in achieving immediate hemostasis in gastrointestinal bleeding. However, due to significantly high rebleeding rates, Hemospray is not suited for definitive long-term therapy.

Efficacy of a novel hemostatic adhesive powder in patients with upper gastrointestinal tumor bleeding

Background

Gastrointestinal tumor bleeding remains a clinical challenge because it is difficult to treat with conventional endoscopic hemostatic options. Recently, an endoscopic hemostatic powder (UI-EWD) was developed and reported to provide effective control of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of current study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of this novel hemostatic powder in tumor bleeding.

Methods

A total of 41 consecutive patients with upper gastrointestinal tumor bleeding were included. UI-EWD was applied in all patients as an auxiliary hemostatic method as a salvage therapy or monotherapy during endoscopic treatment. Hemostasis success rates, adverse event related to UI-EWD, and rates of re-bleeding were evaluated.

Results

In all cases, UI-EWD application was successful at tumor bleeding sites. Immediate hemostasis occurred in 40/41 (97.5%) patients, and re-bleeding within 28 days occurred in 10 of 40 (22.5%) patients that achieved initial hemostasis. The success rate of immediate hemostasis for UI-EWD monotherapy was 100% (23/23). The re-bleeding rate at 28 days after UI-EWD monotherapy was 26.1% (6/23). No adverse events associated with UI-EWD application were encountered.

Conclusions

The success rate of UI-EWD for immediate hemostasis in cases of GI tumor bleeding was excellent and UI-EWD produced promising results with respect to the prevention of re-bleeding. Based on these results, we suggest that UI-EWD be considered an effective salvage therapy or even monotherapy for GI tumor bleeding.

Hemostatic spray powder TC-325 in the primary endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcer-related bleeding: multicenter international registry

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a leading cause of morbidity and is associated with a 2 % - 17 % mortality rate in the UK and USA. Bleeding peptic ulcers account for 50 % of UGIB cases. Endoscopic intervention in a timely manner can improve outcomes. Hemostatic spray is an endoscopic hemostatic powder for GI bleeding. This multicenter registry was created to collect data prospectively on the immediate endoscopic hemostasis of GI bleeding in patients with peptic ulcer disease when hemostatic spray is applied as endoscopic monotherapy, dual therapy, or rescue therapy.

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively (January 2016 - March 2019) from 14 centers in the UK, France, Germany, and the USA. The application of hemostatic spray was decided upon at the endoscopist's discretion.

RESULTS

202 patients with UGIB secondary to peptic ulcers were recruited. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 178/202 patients (88 %), 26/154 (17 %) experienced rebleeding, 21/175 (12 %) died within 7 days, and 38/175 (22 %) died within 30 days (all-cause mortality). Combination therapy of hemostatic spray with other endoscopic modalities had an associated lower 30-day mortality (16 %, P < 0.05) compared with monotherapy or rescue therapy. There were high immediate hemostasis rates across all peptic ulcer disease Forrest classifications.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest case series of outcomes of peptic ulcer bleeding treated with hemostatic spray, with high immediate hemostasis rates for bleeding peptic ulcers.

Endoscopic Treatment of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Using Haemoseal Spray: A Retrospective, Observational Study from a Tertiary Center in North India

Introduction United States Food and Drug Administration recently approved use of Hemospray for the management of gastrointestinal (GI) Bleeding. We report our experience with Haemoseal Spray (HS, Shaili Endoscopy) for the treatment of upper GI bleeding (UGIB).

Methods Records of patients who received HS for UGIB from January 2013 to June 2018 were studied retrospectively. Patients with UGIB from focal lesions refractory to conventional endotherapy or those with diffuse/multiple lesions not amenable to conventional endotherapy received 5cc HS spray. Primary end-point studied was clinical success, defined as control of bleeding over 24 hours. Secondary end-points evaluated included recurrence of bleeding within 7 days, in-hospital mortality, and complications secondary to HS.

Results Thirty-eight patients were treated with HS. The median age was 57 (range: 5–87) years with 27 males and 11 females. In 24 patients, HS was used as monotherapy, while it was combined with Injection/Clip/Argon Plasma Coagulation in 14. Etiology of bleeding was ulcers or erosions in 22, malignancy in 10, portal hypertensive gastropathy/gastric antral vascular ectasia in 4, and radiation gastropathy in 2. Clinical success was achieved in 32/38 (84%). All six nonresponders had coagulopathy related to chemotherapy/bone marrow transplant. Recurrent bleeding within 7 days was observed in four patients (gastric malignancy 2, radiation gastropathy 2). In-hospital mortality was seen in 8/38 (21%) of which 2(4.8%) were directly related to ongoing GI bleeding. There was no procedure-related complication.

Conclusion HS is an effective and safe tool in the endoscopic management of UGIB due to diffuse or multiple focal lesions or focal lesions refractory to conventional endotherapy.

Efficacy of a novel self-assembling peptide hemostatic gel as rescue therapy for refractory acute gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding (AGIB) results in significant morbidity and mortality. Topical hemostatic products have been developed for endoscopic use to help in the management of difficult bleeding. Our aim was to demonstrate the ease of use, safety, and efficacy of PuraStat, a novel hemostat, to control AGIB.

METHODS

We describe 77 patients (41 men) who were treated for acute upper and lower AGIB in a 2-year period. In 50 patients, bleeding occurred as a complication of a previous endoscopic procedure, predominantly endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); however, in the other 27 patients, it derived from peptic ulcers, angiodysplasia, cancers, and surgical anastomoses. Bleeding was spurting in 13 of the 77 patients and oozing in 64. PuraStat was used after the failure of at least two conventional hemostatic methods.

RESULTS

A mean of 2.6 conventional hemostatic methods had been attempted prior to the application of PuraStat. PuraStat achieved successful hemostasis in 90.9 % of patients. In 41 patients, once hemostasis was obtained with PuraStat, endoscopists further stabilized hemostasis by using at least one additional method. Recurrence of bleeding was observed in eight patients (10.4 %). In 16 patients with intraprocedural bleeding, it was possible to complete the procedures (14 EMR, 2 ERCP) after PuraStat hemostasis. No adverse events related to PuraStat were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

PuraStat is feasible, safe, and effective in controlling different types of gastrointestinal hemorrhage after failure of conventional hemostatic methods. Its application also does not hinder continuing endotherapy.

High rate of re-bleeding after application of Hemospray for upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeds

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Hemospray (TC-325, Cook Medical) has recently been approved for use in GI bleeding. Specific clinical indications and predictors of success or failure have not been well delineated.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Hemospray use at a tertiary center. We assessed demographics and characteristics of Hemospray use. We analyzed outcomes of hemostasis, rebleeding, need for embolization or surgery, and death.

RESULTS

86 applications of Hemospray were identified. The most common etiology of upper GI bleeds were ulcers (67.1%) whilst the etiology of lower GI bleeds varied. Hemospray was applied as monotherapy in 28 procedures (32.6%). Immediate hemostasis rate was 88.4%, but there was a high rate of re-bleeding (33.7%). Most re-bleeds occurred within 7 days (86.2%). Syncope was an independent predictive factor re-bleeding at 7 days for EGD (OR = 12.16, 95% CI = 1.51-97.75, P = 0.019). Bleeding refractory to endoscopic treatment with hemospray required radiological embolization in 9 instances, and surgery in 9 instances. Hemospray therapy was protective against need for embolization (p < 0.05). 2 patients underwent liver transplantation and there was a total of 5 deaths. Hepatic disease was an independent predictor of death (OR = 47.15, 95% CI = 2.42-916.89, P = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

Hemospray is effective in achieving immediate hemostasis but is plagued by high rates of rebleeding. Syncope is a predictor of rebleeding, and hepatic disease is a predictor of death in patients undergoing Hemospray therapy. Despite high rates of embolization and surgery, Hemospray may reduce need for embolization. Hemospray use during endoscopy should prompt physicians to consider early re-look endoscopy and more aggressive therapy.

Efficacy of Hemospray in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Background

Recently, amongst other hemostatic modalities, Hemospray (TC-325) has emerged as an effective method for managing patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of Hemospray in patients with non-variceal upper GIB.

Methods

Our primary outcomes were clinical and technical success; secondary outcomes were aggregate rebleeding, early rebleeding, delayed rebleeding, refractory bleeding, mortality, and treatment failure. A meta-analysis of proportions was conducted for all reported primary and secondary outcomes. A relative risk meta-analysis was conducted for studies reporting direct comparisons between Hemospray and other hemostatic measures.

Results

A total of 20 studies with 1280 patients were included in the final analysis. Technical success of Hemospray was seen in 97% of cases (95% confidence interval [CI] 94-98%, I²=52.89%) and a significant trend towards increasing technical success was seen during publication years 2011-2019. Clinical success of Hemospray was seen in 91% of cases (95%CI 88-94%, I²=47.72%), compared to 87% (95%CI 75-94%, I²=0.00%) for other hemostatic measures. The secondary outcomes of aggregate rebleeding, early rebleeding, delayed rebleeding, refractory rebleeding, mortality and treatment failure following the use of Hemospray were seen in 27%, 20%, 9%, 8%, 8%, and 31% of cases, respectively.

Conclusion

Hemospray is safe, effective and non-inferior to traditional hemostatic measures for the management of non-variceal upper GIB, and can thus be used as an alternative option.

Hemospray® during Emergency Endoscopy: Indonesia's First Experience from 37 Patients

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is one of the main indications for performing endoscopy; this condition can be life threatening. In some cases, emergency endoscopy (EE) is necessary to identify the source and stop the bleeding. Recently, hemostatic powder was introduced, one of which was Hemospray® (Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC, USA), which showed promising results for rapid hemostasis in primary treatment and salvage when conventional methods fails. Samples were taken retrospectively for a duration of 3 years since Hemospray was first introduced in Indonesia, from January 2016 to January 2019. The total number of EEs that used Hemospray were 37 procedures for 37 patients; 21 (56.8%) were males and 16 (43.2%) were females, while the average age was 67.8 years. Hemospray was used for upper GIB in 30 cases (81.1%) and for lower GIB in 7 (18.9%). Hemospray was used as monotherapy for 24 patients (64.9%) and as secondary modality for 13 (35.1%). The primary treatment was argon plasma coagulation in 8 cases (21.6%), adrenaline in 4 (10.8%), and Histoacryl® in 1 (2.7%). The mortality rate was 37.8% (n = 14); most deaths occurred within 30 days after the EE was performed, and none of the deaths was related to endoscopy or GIB. Hemospray was able to achieve hemostasis in all cases. Furthermore, there was no event of rebleeding. When conventional modalities alone were inadequate, the combination with Hemospray appeared to be able to control the bleeding. One of the main advantages of Hemospray is the ease in reaching difficult areas, and it require less skill compared to conventional modalities.

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.

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: endoscopic assessment and treatment

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) represents 10% of medical emergencies in the UK and is associated with a significant mortality risk. Mortality has remained steady over the past 2 decades, at approximately 10%, with over 4000 deaths per annum in the UK. Patients with significant bleeding present with symptoms of haematemesis, melaena or haematochezia (rapid transit of red blood through the GI tract). An assessment of haemodynamic stability along with adequate resuscitation is vital prior to performing safe endoscopy. The performance of prompt upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is then necessary, as it has diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic roles. Early identification of aetiology (variceal versus non-variceal bleeding) is important and directs endoscopic and medical treatment. An increasing number of endoscopic therapeutic options are now available.

Endoscopic advances in the management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A review

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is defined as the bleeding originating from the esophagus to the ligament of Treitz and further classified into variceal and non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding. Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains a common clinical problem globally. It is associated with high mortality, morbidity, and cost of the health care system. Despite the continuous improvement of therapeutic endoscopy, the 30-d readmission rate secondary to rebleeding and associated mortality is an ongoing issue. Available Food and Drug Administration approved traditional or conventional therapeutic endoscopic modalities includes epinephrine injection, argon plasma coagulation, heater probe, and placement of through the scope clip, which can be used alone or in combination to decrease the risk of rebleeding. Recently, more attention has been paid to the novel advanced endoscopic devices for primary treatment of the bleeding lesion and as a secondary measure when conventional therapies fail to achieve hemostasis. This review highlights emerging endoscopic modalities used in the management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal related bleeding such as over-the-scope clip, Coagrasper, hemostatic sprays, radiofrequency ablation, cryotherapy, endoscopic suturing devices, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided angiotherapy. In this review article, we will also discuss the technical aspects of the common procedures, outcomes in terms of safety and efficacy, and their advantages and limitations in the setting of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Randomized controlled trial of hemostatic powder versus endoscopic clipping for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite advances in pharmacological and endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB), mortality is still relevant. TC-325 (Hemospray-Cook Medical) is a mineral powder with adsorptive properties, designed for endoscopic hemostasis. There are still no comparative trials studying this new hemostatic modality. The objective of this research was to compare the use of TC-325 (associated with epinephrine injection) with the combined technique of endoscopic clipping and epinephrine injection for the treatment of patients with NVUGIB.

METHODS

We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial with patients that presented NVUGIB with an actively bleeding lesion at the endoscopic evaluation. Patients were randomized either to the Hemospray or Hemoclip group. The randomization list was generated by a computer program and remained unknown throughout the entire trial. All patients underwent second-look endoscopy.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients were enrolled. Peptic ulcer was the most frequent etiology. Primary hemostasis was achieved in all Hemospray cases and in 90% of Hemoclip group (p = 0.487). Five patients in Hemospray group underwent an additional hemostatic procedure during second-look endoscopy, while no patient in the Hemoclip group needed it (p = 0.04). Rebleeding, emergency surgery and mortality rates were similar in both groups. No toxicity, allergy events, or gastrointestinal obstruction signs were observed in Hemospray group.

CONCLUSIONS

TC-325 presents similar hemostatic results when compared with conventional dual therapy for patients with NVUGIB. Hemospray's excellent primary hemostasis rate certifies it as a valuable tool in arduous situations of severe bleeding or difficult location site.

Use of hemostatic powder in treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims TC-325 is a novel mineral hemostatic powder that creates a mechanical barrier by absorbing blood components and promoting clotting. Recently approved for use in humans, it has shown promise for treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). However, because there have been no large studies of TC-325, its true efficacy and safety profile remain unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of TC-325 in treating UGIB, based on rates of initial hemostasis, rebleeding, and adverse events (AEs).

Methods We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Latin-American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases, as well as the gray literature, to identify articles describing use of TC-325 up to October 2018. Primary outcomes were initial hemostasis and rebleeding. AEs were described as a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with international scores.

Results We identified 2077 records after removal of duplicates. We included 50 studies, involving a collective total of 1445 patients, in the quantitative synthesis. Primary hemostasis and rebleeding rates were 90.7 % and 26.1 %, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed similar results. Only eight AEs were reported.

Conclusions TC-325 appears to be a safe, effective treatment for UGIB. The overall rate of initial hemostasis after TC-325 use is high, regardless of etiology of bleeding or whether TC-325 is used as a primary or rescue therapy. Although it is also associated with high rebleeding rates, rates of AEs and equipment failure after TC-325 use are extremely low.

Novel hemostatic adhesive powder for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Background and study aims  A new hemostatic adhesive powder (UI-EWD) was developed to reduce high rebleeding rates and technical challenges associated with application of currently available hemostatic powders. The aim of the current study was to assess performance of UI-EWD for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). Patients and methods  A total of 56 consecutive patients that received UI-EWD monotherapy for endoscopic hemostasis due to NVUGIB were retrospectively reviewed. Main study outcomes were success rates with immediate hemostasis and rebleeding within 30 days. Outcomes were analyzed by reviewing patient medical records. Results  Etiologies of bleeding were: post-endoscopic therapy bleeding in 46 (82.1 %), peptic ulcer in 8 (14.3 %), tumor in 1 (1.8 %), and other in 1 (1.8 %). UI-EWD was successfully applied at bleeding site in all cases. The success rate of immediate hemostasis was 96.4 % (54/56), and the 30-day rebleeding rate among patients that achieved immediate hemostasis was 3.7 % (2/54). No adverse event related to use of UI-EWD occurred. Conclusion  UI-EWD was found to have a high immediate hemostasis success rate in NVUGIB when used as monotherapy and showed promising results in terms of preventing rebleeding.

Efficacy of hemostatic powders in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence on the efficacy of hemostatic powders in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIMS

Provide a pooled estimate of the efficacy and safety profile of hemostatic powders in digestive endoscopy.

METHODS

A computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed through December 2018. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was immediate hemostasis rate. Secondary outcomes were rebleeding rate (either at 7 and 30 days), bleeding-related mortality, and all-cause mortality rate.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies, of which three were randomized-controlled trials, with 1063 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 95.3% (93.3%-97.3%) of patients, with no difference based on treatment strategy, hemostatic agent used, bleeding etiology. Success rate was slightly lower in spurting bleeding (91.9%). Hemostatic powders showed similar efficacy as compared to conventional endoscopic therapy (odds ratio: 0.84, 0.06-11.47; p = 0.9). Thirty-day rebleeding rate was 16.9% (9.8%-24%) with no difference in comparison to other endoscopic treatments (odds ratio 1.59, 0.35-7.21; p = 0.55). All-cause and bleeding-related mortality rates were 7.6% (4%-10.8%) and 1.4% (0.5%-2.4%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Novel hemostatic powders represent a user-friendly and effective tool in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Updates on management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common and life-threatening condition in the United States and worldwide.

RECENT FINDINGS

There have been several exciting recent advances in the endoscopic management of UGIB. One such advance is the recent approval of Hemospray by US Food and Drug Administration in May 2018. Another one is the emerging role of video capsule endoscopy as a triage and localization tool for UGIB patients. Finally, the development of new reversal agents for antithrombotic medications is an important advance in the management of life-threatening upper gastrointestinal bleed.

SUMMARY

In this article, we will broadly review the management of nonvariceal UGIB, focusing primarily on the data addressing these new advances.

Hemostatic spray powder TC-325 for GI bleeding in a nationwide study: survival and predictors of failure via competing risks analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

TC-325 (Hemospray, Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC) is an inorganic hemostatic powder recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness, safety, and predictors of TC-325 failure in a large real-life cohort.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study conducted at 21 Spanish centers. All patients treated with TC-325 until September 2018 were included. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as failed intraprocedural hemostasis or recurrent bleeding within the first 30 postprocedural days. Secondary outcomes included safety and survival. Risk and predictors of failure were assessed via competing-risk models.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 261 patients, of whom 219 (83.9%) presented with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). The most common causes were peptic ulcer (28%), malignancy (18.4%), and therapeutic endoscopy-related GIB (17.6%). TC-325 was used as rescue therapy in 191 (73.2%) patients. The rate of intraprocedural hemostasis was 93.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90%-96%). Risks of TC-325 failure at postprocedural days 3, 7, and 30 were 21.1%, 24.6%, and 27.4%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, spurting bleeding (P = .004), use of vasoactive drugs (P = .02), and hypotension (P = .008) were independent predictors of failure. Overall 30-day survival was 81.9% (95% CI, 76%-86%) and intraprocedural hemostasis was associated with a better prognosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.29; P = .006). Two severe adverse events were noted.

CONCLUSION

TC-325 was safe and effective for intraprocedural hemostasis in more than 90% of patients, regardless of the cause or site of bleeding and its use as rescue therapy. In this high-risk cohort treated with TC-325, the 30-day failure rate exceeded 25% and was highest with spurting bleeding or hemodynamic instability.

The Effect of Hemostasis Powder® on Treatment of Bleeding from Benign Ulcers of Upper Gastrointestinal Tract; A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is one of the most prevalent internal medical emergencies. Despite using several methods of treatment, effective treatment cannot be achieved in some patients. Hemostasis powder® is a mineral-herbal product. This emulsion was able to coagulate blood in, in vitro studies and also was effective in the treatment of mucosal and cutaneous bleeding in animal studies, without any toxicity. We decided to compare its effect on the treatment of human GI bleeding with the other common method for treatment of GI bleeding "argon plasma coagulation plus epinephrine injection" in a pilot randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

The patients with GI bleeding who were admitted to the emergency wards of Ghaem and Imam-Reza Hospitals in Mashhad were randomized to treatment with Hemostasis powder® or "argon plasma coagulation plus epinephrine injection" method, with randomized doctors, after complete testimonial sheet. The patients underwent re-endoscopy to evaluate the ulcers 3 days later, and were under observation for 3 months. After achieving the number of patients that was planned (20 patients), all data were entered to SPSS software version 20 and were analyzed with parametric and non-parametric tests.

RESULTS

The treatment success was 95% in both groups. There was no complication after treatment of GI bleeding in the two groups after 3 months. No rebreeding was reported in Hemostasis powder® group but 10 % was reported in "argon plasma coagulation plus epinephrine injection" group.

CONCLUSION

It seems that if the successful results occur in the future complimentary studies, Hemostasis powder® can be used as a new, effective, available, and inexpensive measure in the treatment of GI bleeding and also in the GI bleedings that cannot be treated with common available methods.

Efficacy of a novel endoscopically deliverable muco-adhesive hemostatic powder in an acute gastric bleeding porcine model

This study investigated the effectiveness of new hemostatic adhesive powder (UI-EWD) in a swine mode of acute gastric bleeding. Gastric ulcer bleeding was induced endoscopically at two locations in each of eight heparinized mini-pigs. UI-EWD and saline were sprayed endoscopically in the experimental (n = 5) and control groups (n = 3), respectively. The hemostatic effect and hydrogel persistence on ulcers were periodically evaluated endoscopically. Initial hemostasis was achieved successfully in all lesions in the experimental group. Follow-up endoscopy showed minor delayed bleeding in 10% at 6 hours in the experimental group, whereas re-bleeding was observed in 50% at 6 hours in the control group. UI-EWD gel persisted at 90%, 80%, and 50% of ulcer bases at 6, 18, and 42 hours post-application, respectively. This study suggests that muco-adhesive UI-EWD may be effective in the endoscopic treatment of active ulcer bleeding.

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 approach to the patient with acute gastrointestinal bleeding

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a very common condition at all ages, with high rates of morbidity and mortality, especially in case of acute presentation. The optimal management of acute GIB requires a timely overview of vital signs and clinical presentation to stabilize the patient if necessary and set up the most adequate diagnostic and therapeutic approach, based on the suspected etiology. Endoscopy plays a major role both in diagnosis and treatment of acute GIB, as allows the application of several hemostasis techniques during the diagnostic session, which should preferably be performed within 24 hours from the acute event. The hemostasis technique should be chosen based on type, etiology of the bleeding and the operator preference and expertise. Nevertheless, several challenging cases need the cooperation of radiology especially in the diagnostic phase, and even in the therapeutic phase for those bleedings in which medical and endoscopic techniques have failed. Imaging diagnostic techniques include mainly CT angiography, scintigraphy with labeled erythrocytes and arteriography. This last technique plays also a therapeutic role in case arterial embolization is needed. Only those patients in which the previous techniques have failed, both in diagnosis and treatment, are candidates for emergency surgery.

Endoscopic suturing for management of peptic ulcer-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a preliminary experience

Background and study aims  Acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) due to peptic ulcer disease (PUD) remains a common and challenging emergency managed by gastroenterologists. The proper role of endoscopic suturing on the management of PUD-related UGIB is unknown. Patients and methods  This is an international case series of patients who underwent endoscopic suturing for bleeding PUD. Primary outcome was rate of immediate hemostasis and rate of early rebleeding (within 72 hours). Secondary outcomes included technical success, delayed rebleeding (> 72 hours), and rate of adverse events (AEs). Results  Ten patients (mean age 66.7 years, 30 % female) were included in this study. Nine (90 %) had prior failed endoscopy hemostasis with an average of 1.4 ± 0.7 (range 1 - 3) prior endoscopic sessions. Forrest classification was Ib in 5 (50 %), IIa in 3 (30 %), IIb in 1(10 %), and IIc in 1 (10 %). Mean suturing time was 13.4 ± 5.6 (range 3.5 to 20) minutes. Technical success was 100 %. Rate of immediate hemostasis was 100 % and rate of early rebleeding was 0 %. Mean number of sutures was 1.5 (range, 1 - 4). No AEs were observed. Delayed recurrent bleeding was not observed in any cases after a median of 11 months (range 2 - 56), after endoscopic suturing. Conclusions  Oversewing of a bleeding or high-risk ulcer using endoscopic suturing appears to be a safe and effective method for achieving endoscopic hemostasis. It may be considered as rescue endoscopic therapy when primary endoscopic hemostasis fails to control the bleeding or when hemorrhage recurs after successful control of bleeding.

Asia-Pacific working group consensus on non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: an update 2018

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains an important emergency condition, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. As endoscopic therapy is the 'gold standard' of management, treatment of these patients can be considered in three stages: pre-endoscopic treatment, endoscopic haemostasis and post-endoscopic management. Since publication of the Asia-Pacific consensus on non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) 7 years ago, there have been significant advancements in the clinical management of patients in all three stages. These include pre-endoscopy risk stratification scores, blood and platelet transfusion, use of proton pump inhibitors; during endoscopy new haemostasis techniques (haemostatic powder spray and over-the-scope clips); and post-endoscopy management by second-look endoscopy and medication strategies. Emerging techniques, including capsule endoscopy and Doppler endoscopic probe in assessing adequacy of endoscopic therapy, and the pre-emptive use of angiographic embolisation, are attracting new attention. An emerging problem is the increasing use of dual antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants in patients with cardiac and cerebrovascular diseases. Guidelines on the discontinuation and then resumption of these agents in patients presenting with NVUGIB are very much needed. The Asia-Pacific Working Group examined recent evidence and recommends practical management guidelines in this updated consensus statement.

What Is the Best Endoscopic Strategy in Acute Non-variceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding?

OPINION STATEMENT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Upper non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (UNVGIB) remains an important clinical challenge for endoscopists, requiring skill and expertise for correct management. In this paper, we suggest the best strategy for an effective treatment of this complex category of patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Early endoscopic examination, the increasingly widespread use of endoscopic hemostasis methods, and the most powerful antisecretory agents that induce clot stabilization have radically modified the clinical scenario for treating this pathology. While hospitalization for digestive hemorrhage is decreasing, the incidence of bleeding seems to be increasing, especially in the elderly for whom a greater use of gastrolesive drugs and the presence of comorbidities are more common. A multidisciplinary approach for initial patient evaluation and hemodynamic resuscitation prior to endoscopic treatment is crucial for correct management, prevention of rebleeding, and reduction of morbidity and mortality rates and hospital stays. Appropriate operator technical expertise, together with the availability of a wide range of endoscopes and devices, is mandatory. Newer endoscopic techniques may improve patient outcomes for difficult-to-treat lesions. Today, endoscopic hemostasis can be achieved in over 95% of patients.

Emerging Endoscopic Treatments for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage

Despite major improvements in endoscopic devices and therapeutic endoscopy, rebleeding rates and mortality have remained the same for several decades. Therefore, much interest has been paid to emerging therapeutic devices, such as the over-the-scope clip and hemostatic sprays. Other emerging technologies, such as radiofrequency ablation, endoscopic suturing devices, and ultrasound-guided angiotherapy, are also being investigated to improve therapeutic outcomes in specific situations. This narrative review details the technical aspects, clinical applications, outcomes, and potential limitations of these devices in the context of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

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).