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

Advancing hemostasis: A meta-analysis of novel vs conventional endoscopic therapies for non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is a life-threatening condition requiring prompt and effective hemostasis. Various endoscopic interventions, including novel hemostatic powders (HP), over-the-scope clips (OTSC), and traditional approaches, have been employed to manage upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Despite advancements, comparative efficacy and safety of these modalities remain uncertain.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of novel hemostatic interventions compared to conventional endoscopic techniques for managing UGIB.

METHODS

Cochrane, MEDLINE, PubMed and Scopus libraries were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to October 2024. Only RCTs comparing novel interventions, such as HP or OTSC, with conventional endoscopic treatments computed tomography (CT) were included. The primary outcome was the 30-day rebleeding rate. Secondary outcomes included initial hemostasis, short-term rebleeding rates, need for salvage therapy (surgical/angiographic), 30-day all-cause mortality, and bleeding-related mortality. We performed pairwise and network meta- analyses for all treatments.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were included in this analysis. Regarding the 30-day rebleeding rate, OTSC and HP showed superior efficacy compared with CT [OTSC vs CT: Relative risk (RR): 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.65; HP vs CT: RR: 0.73, 95%CI: 0.45-1.13], while OTSC and HP had comparable efficacy (RR: 0.56, 95%CI: 0.30-1.05). OTSC ranked the highest in the network ranking estimate for this outcome. For the secondary outcomes, OTSC demonstrated superior efficacy for the short-term rebleeding rate (OTSC vs CT: RR: 0.35, 95%CI: 0.14-0.74; HP vs CT: RR: 0.62, 95%CI: 0.28-1.35; OTSC vs HP: RR: 0.59, 95%CI: 0.17-1.67). Regarding the initial hemostasis rate, OTSC was slightly more effective than CT (OTSC vs CT: RR: 1.20, 95%CI: 1.06-1.57) and comparable to HP (OTSC vs HP: RR: 1.08, 95%CI: 0.89-1.40). There were no significant differences among treatments for all-cause mortality, bleeding-related mortality, or the necessity of surgical or angiographic salvage therapy. OTSC consistently ranked highest across most outcomes in the network ranking estimate.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis highlights OTSC as the most effective intervention for reducing 30-day and short-term rebleeding rates in NVUGIB, surpassing both CT and HP, supporting OTSC as a preferred first-line treatment for NVUGIB, while HP and CT remain viable alternatives. Further studies are needed to explore long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Efficacy of Polysaccharide Hemostatic Powder on Blood Oozing Among Patients With Postendoscopic Sphincterotomy Bleeding: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Postendoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) bleeding presents challenges for endoscopists using side-viewing duodenoscopes. Recently, polysaccharide hemostatic powder (PHP) has shown promising results in managing gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Given the established efficacy of endoscopic clips in addressing post-EST bleeding, we aim to evaluate the efficacy of PHP and its noninferiority to endoscopic clips in patients with nonpulsatile post-EST bleeding.

METHODS

Patients with nonpulsatile post-EST bleeding were randomized to receive either PHP or endoscopic clips. The primary end point was the immediate hemostasis rate, with secondary end points including delayed bleeding rate, overall treatment success rate, mean hemostasis time, and other major complications.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients with nonpulsatile post-EST bleeding were included. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 100% of the PHP group and 92.3% in the endoscopic clip group (risk difference, 7.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.5%-15.0%, P = 0.022). Four patients in the endoscopic clip group experienced immediate hemostasis failure. Hemostasis time was shorter in the PHP group (50.77 vs 62.81 seconds, P = 0.011). One delayed bleeding case (2.1%) occurred in the clip group, whereas none were observed in the PHP group. The overall treatment success rate was higher in the PHP group compared with the endoscopic clip group (100% vs 90.4%; P = 0.022). No differences were observed in adverse events.

DISCUSSION

PHP is not inferior to endoscopic clip and could be of use in immediate hemostasis for nonpulsatile post-EST bleeding, with the added advantage of ease of use. Further research is needed to assess its efficacy in preventing delayed bleeding ( chictr.org.cn , ChiCTR2400092280).

Efficacy and applications for PuraStat® use in the management of unselected gastrointestinal bleeding: A retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Hemostatic powders have been used as primary or salvage therapy to control gastrointestinal bleeding in a number of scenarios. PuraStat® is a novel, self-assembling peptide gel that has properties that differ from hemostatic powders. It is transparent, can be used in narrow spaces and combined with other modalities. Also, it is pre-filled in a syringe ready to use and easy to handle and deliver. PuraStat® has been shown to be effective and safe in treating gastrointestinal bleeding lesions. But, its role as a hemostatic agent in all bleeding indications remains to be clarified.

AIM

To evaluate PuraStat® efficacy and its applications, feasibility and safety in treating gastrointestinal bleeding lesions.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective single-centre analysis of all consecutive patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, that required endoscopic treatment and where PuraStat® was applied, from June 2020 to October 2022. Demographics, biochemical, endoscopic, endoscopist assessment and outcome data were collected. We analysed the whole cohort and the subgroup with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The primary outcome was to evaluate the efficacy of PuraStat® at achieving initial hemostasis. The patients were followed-up for 30 days after the episode of bleeding.

RESULTS

In total 45 patients were included, and 17/45 (37.8%) females. The mean age was 65.8 years. Charlson score was > 2 in 27/45 (60%) and 26/45 (57.8%) required transfusion. The procedures were gastroscopy (77.8%), colonoscopy (15.5%), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (4.4%) and enteroscopy (2.2%). The most common bleeding lesion was peptic ulcer (33.3%). PuraStat® was used alone in 36% of the cases. One hundred percent achieved initial hemostasis and no complications were documented. There were no significant differences between the use of PuraStat® alone or in combination in terms of re-bleeding (P = 0.64) or mortality (P = 0.69). In 46.6% of cases, the reason for applying PuraStat® was as addition to standard of care, in 35.5% as an alternative because standard of care was not possible and in 17.8% as a rescue therapy.

CONCLUSION

PuraStat® is an effective therapy for multiple etiologies and is considered very easy to use in the majority. Its role as front line agent should be considered in the future.

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.

TC-325 Superiority in Malignant Gastrointestinal Bleeding: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of topical hemostatic agents, recommended for peptic ulcer bleeding, remains poorly characterized in malignant gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB).

METHODS

We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis assessing the efficacy of topical hemostatic agents in malignant GIB. The literature was searched using OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science databases (database inception to November 2023). Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical hemostatic agents with conventional endoscopic modalities in malignant GIB were included. Original RCT patient-level data were obtained. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Quality of the evidence was evaluated using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The primary outcome was immediate hemostasis; secondary outcomes were 30-day rebleeding and the composite measure of further bleeding (persistent bleeding or 30-day rebleeding). Other outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events, and need for additional nonendoscopic treatment. Odds ratios (ORs) from endpoint comparisons were pooled using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Overall, 985 citations were identified; 3 RCTs (n = 160 patients) were included with all assessing TC-325 (Hemospray). TC-325 achieved immediate hemostasis more often than conventional endoscopic modalities (OR 46.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.89-369.1) (low-level certainty). Thirty-day rebleeding (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11-0.70) and further bleeding (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.05-0.26) were both significantly lower with TC-325 (very-low-level certainty). All-cause mortality and need for additional nonendoscopic treatment did not differ between groups. No adverse events were reported. Subgroup analysis confirmed TC-325 superiority in patients with upper GIB.

DISCUSSION

TC-325 seems superior to conventional endoscopic therapy in managing patients with malignant GIB. TC-325 results in improvements in immediate hemostasis, 30-day rebleeding, and further bleeding, based on very low-to-low certainties of evidence.

Current status and clinical outcome of endoscopic hemostatic powder in gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Few multicenter studies have investigated the efficacy of hemostatic powders in gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of hemostatic powder therapy and the independent factors affecting rebleeding rates.

METHODS

We retrospectively recruited patients who underwent a new hemostatic adhesive powder (UI-EWD; Next-Biomedical) treatment for upper and lower GI bleeding between January 1, 2020 and March 1, 2023. We collected patients' medical records and bleeding lesions. The primary outcomes were clinical and technical success rates, and the secondary outcomes were early, delayed, and refractory bleeding, mortality, and factors affecting early rebleeding rates.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 135 patients (age: 67.7±13.6 years, male: 74.1%) from five hospitals. Indications for UI-EWD were peptic ulcers (51.1%), post-procedure-related bleeding (23.0%), and tumor bleeding (19.3%). The clinical and technical success rates were both 97%. The early, delayed, and refractory rebleeding rates were 19.3%, 11.1%, and 12.8%, respectively. Initially elevated blood urea nitrogen (BUN) levels (p=0.014) and Forrest classification IA or IB compared with IIA or IIB (p=0.036) were factors affecting early rebleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

UI-EWD showed high clinical and technical success rates; however, rebleeding after UI-EWD therapy in patients with initially high BUN levels and active bleeding, according to the Forrest classification, should be considered.

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.

Endoscopic management of postoperative bleeding

Postoperative gastrointestinal bleeding is a rare but serious complication that can lead to prolonged hospitalization and significant morbidity and mortality. It can be managed by reoperation, endoscopy, or radiological intervention. Although reoperation carries risks, particularly in critically ill postoperative patients, minimally invasive interventions, such as endoscopy or radiological intervention, confer advantages. Endoscopy allows localization of the bleeding focus and hemostatic management at the same time. Although there have been concerns regarding the potential risk of creating an anastomotic disruption or perforation during early postoperative endoscopy, endoscopic management has become more popular over time. However, there is currently no consensus on the best endoscopic management for postoperative gastrointestinal bleeding because most practices are based on retrospective case series. Furthermore, there is a wide range of individual complexities in anatomical and clinical settings after surgery. This review focused on the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic management in various surgical settings.

One in four patients with gastrointestinal bleeding develops shock or hemodynamic instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hemodynamic instability and shock are associated with untoward outcomes in gastrointestinal bleeding. However, there are no studies in the existing literature on the proportion of patients who developed these outcomes after gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIM

To determine the pooled event rates in the available literature and specify them based on the bleeding source.

METHODS

The protocol was registered on PROSPERO in advance (CRD42021283258). A systematic search was performed in three databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) on 14th October 2021. Pooled proportions with 95%CI were calculated with a random-effects model. A subgroup analysis was carried out based on the time of assessment (on admission or during hospital stay). Heterogeneity was assessed by Higgins and Thompson's I2 statistics. The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool was used for the risk of bias assessment. The Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/) tool was applied to obtain the latest highlight articles.

RESULTS

We identified 11589 records, of which 220 studies were eligible for data extraction. The overall proportion of shock and hemodynamic instability in general gastrointestinal bleeding patients was 0.25 (95%CI: 0.17-0.36, I2 = 100%). In non-variceal bleeding, the proportion was 0.22 (95%CI: 0.14-0.31, I2 = 100%), whereas it was 0.25 (95%CI: 0.19-0.32, I2 = 100%) in variceal bleeding. The proportion of patients with colonic diverticular bleeding who developed shock or hemodynamic instability was 0.12 (95%CI: 0.06-0.22, I2 = 90%). The risk of bias was low, and heterogeneity was high in all analyses.

CONCLUSION

One in five, one in four, and one in eight patients develops shock or hemodynamic instability on admission or during hospitalization in the case of non-variceal, variceal, and colonic diverticular bleeding, respectively.

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 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.

Modification of the endoscopic hemostatic powder application technique

Video 1Modification of the endoscopic hemostatic powder application technique.

Efficacy analysis of hemostatic spray following endoscopic papillectomy: A multicenter comparative study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic post-papillectomy bleeding is a serious adverse event with a prevalence ranging from 2% to 45.3%. Conventional hemostatic methods, including diluted epinephrine injection before papillectomy or argon plasma coagulation after papillectomy, did not show a preventive role in reducing immediate or delayed post-papillectomy bleeding. Therefore, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a hemostatic powder spray for post-papillectomy bleeding and compare with those of conventional modalities.

METHODS

Patients who underwent endoscopic papillectomy were enrolled in five tertiary hospitals. The group was divided into hemostatic spray and conventional control groups according to the bleeding control methods. The main outcome measurements were delayed bleeding rate and any adverse events related to the procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients who received a hemostatic spray (n = 18) or conventional hemostatic methods (n = 22) after endoscopic papillectomy were included. The prevalence of delayed bleeding was not different in the two groups: 27.8% and 36.4% in hemostatic spray and conventional control groups (P = 0.564), respectively. The adverse events such as post-papillectomy pancreatitis and cholangitis were not different in the two groups. There were no procedure-related mortalities.

CONCLUSION

Hemostatic spray is technically feasible and safe for the prevention or management of post-papillectomy bleeding. Hemostatic spray can be one of the options for post-papillectomy bleeding control methods owing to its convenient use.

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.

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.

Hemostasis Techniques for Non-variceal Upper GI Hemorrhage: Beyond Injection and Cautery

B. Nulsen D. M. Jensen.

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.

New Trends and Advances in Non-Variceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding-Series II

The gastrointestinal tract is a long tubular structure wherein any point in the mucosa along its entire length could be the source of a hemorrhage. Upper (esophagel and gastroduodenal) and lower (jejunum, ileum, and colon) gastrointestinal bleeding are common. Gastroduodenal and colonic bleeding are more frequent than bleeding from the small bowel, but nowadays the entire gastrointestinal tract can be explored endoscopically and bleeding lesions can be locally treated successfully to stop or prevent further bleeding. The extensive use of antiplatelet and anticoagulants drugs in cardiovascular patients is, at least in part, the cause of the increasing number of patients suffering from gastrointestinal bleeding. Patients with these conditions are usually older and more fragile because of their comorbidities. The correct management of antithrombotic drugs in cases of gastrointestinal bleeding is essential for a successful outcome for patients. The influence of the microbiome in the pathogenesis of small bowel bleeding is an example of the new data that are emerging as potential therapeutic target for bleeding prevention. This text summarizes the latest research and advances in all forms of acute gastrointestinal bleeding (i.e., upper, small bowel and lower). Diagnosis is approached, and medical, endoscopic or antithrombotic management are discussed in the text in an accessible and comprehensible way.

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.

Endotherapy for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH) is a common GI emergency with significant morbidity and mortality. Triaging cases on the basis of patient-related factors, restrictive blood transfusion strategy, and hemodynamic stabilization are key initial steps for the management of patients with NVUGIH. Endoscopy remains a vital step for both diagnosis and definitive management. Multiple studies and guidelines have now defined the optimum timing for performing the endoscopy after hospitalization, to better the outcome. Conventional methods for achieving endoscopic hemostasis, such as injection therapy, contact, and noncontact thermal therapy, and mechanical therapy, such as through-the-scope clips, have reported to have 76 to 90% efficacy for primary hemostasis. Newer modalities to enhance hemostasis rates have come in vogue. Many of these modalities, such as cap-mounted clips, coagulation forceps, and hemostatic powders have proved to be efficacious in multiple studies. Thus, the newer modalities are recommended not only for management of persistent bleed and recurrent bleed after failed initial hemostasis, using conventional modalities but also now being advocated for primary hemostasis. Failure of endotherapy would warrant radiological or surgical intervention. Some newer tools to optimize endotherapy, such as endoscopic Doppler probes, for determining flow in visible or underlying vessels in ulcer bleed are now being evaluated. This review is focused on the technical aspects and efficacy of various endoscopic modalities, both conventional and new. A synopsis of the various studies describing and comparing the modalities have been outlined. Postendoscopic management including Helicobacter pylori therapy and starting of anticoagulants and antiplatelets have also been outlined.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Upper Gastrointestinal and Ulcer Bleeding

We performed systematic reviews addressing predefined clinical questions to develop recommendations with the GRADE approach regarding management of patients with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We suggest risk assessment in the emergency department to identify very-low-risk patients (e.g., Glasgow-Blatchford score = 0-1) who may be discharged with outpatient follow-up. For patients hospitalized with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, we suggest red blood cell transfusion at a threshold of 7 g/dL. Erythromycin infusion is suggested before endoscopy, and endoscopy is suggested within 24 hours after presentation. Endoscopic therapy is recommended for ulcers with active spurting or oozing and for nonbleeding visible vessels. Endoscopic therapy with bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, and absolute ethanol injection is recommended, and low- to very-low-quality evidence also supports clips, argon plasma coagulation, and soft monopolar electrocoagulation; hemostatic powder spray TC-325 is suggested for actively bleeding ulcers and over-the-scope clips for recurrent ulcer bleeding after previous successful hemostasis. After endoscopic hemostasis, high-dose proton pump inhibitor therapy is recommended continuously or intermittently for 3 days, followed by twice-daily oral proton pump inhibitor for the first 2 weeks of therapy after endoscopy. Repeat endoscopy is suggested for recurrent bleeding, and if endoscopic therapy fails, transcatheter embolization is suggested.

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.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2021

1: ESGE recommends in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Patients with GBS ≤ 1 are at very low risk of rebleeding, mortality within 30 days, or needing hospital-based intervention and can be safely managed as outpatients with outpatient endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in patients with acute UGIH who are taking low-dose aspirin as monotherapy for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis, aspirin should not be interrupted. If for any reason it is interrupted, aspirin should be re-started as soon as possible, preferably within 3-5 days.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that following hemodynamic resuscitation, early (≤ 24 hours) upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be performed. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4: ESGE does not recommend urgent (≤ 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy since as compared to early endoscopy, patient outcomes are not improved. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends for patients with actively bleeding ulcers (FIa, FIb), combination therapy using epinephrine injection plus a second hemostasis modality (contact thermal or mechanical therapy). Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends for patients with an ulcer with a nonbleeding visible vessel (FIIa), contact or noncontact thermal therapy, mechanical therapy, or injection of a sclerosing agent, each as monotherapy or in combination with epinephrine injection. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE suggests that in patients with persistent bleeding refractory to standard hemostasis modalities, the use of a topical hemostatic spray/powder or cap-mounted clip should be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that for patients with clinical evidence of recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage, use of a cap-mounted clip should be considered. In the case of failure of this second attempt at endoscopic hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) should be considered. Surgery is indicated when TAE is not locally available or after failed TAE. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with FIIb ulcer stigmata (adherent clot) not treated endoscopically. (A): PPI therapy should be administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (e. g., 80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy. (B): High dose PPI therapies given as intravenous bolus dosing (twice-daily) or in oral formulation (twice-daily) can be considered as alternative regimens.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10: ESGE recommends that in patients who require ongoing anticoagulation therapy following acute NVUGIH (e. g., peptic ulcer hemorrhage), anticoagulation should be resumed as soon as the bleeding has been controlled, preferably within or soon after 7 days of the bleeding event, based on thromboembolic risk. The rapid onset of action of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS), as compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), must be considered in this context.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in 2020: New techniques and outcomes

The clinical outcome of upper gastrointestinal bleeding has improved due to advances in endoscopic therapy and standardized peri-endoscopy care. Apart from validating clinical scores, artificial intelligence-assisted machine learning models may play an important role in risk stratification. While standard endoscopic treatments remain irreplaceable, novel endoscopic modalities have changed the landscape of management. Over-the-scope clips have high success rates as rescue or even first-line treatments in difficult-to-treat cases. Hemostatic powder is safe and easy to use, which can be useful as temporary control with its high immediate hemostatic ability. After endoscopic hemostasis, Doppler endoscopic probe can offer an objective measure to guide the treatment endpoint. In refractory bleeding, angiographic embolization should be considered before salvage surgery. In variceal hemorrhage, banding ligation and glue injection are first-line treatment options. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapy is gaining popularity due to its capability of precise localization for treatment targets. A self-expandable metal stent may be considered as an alternative option to balloon tamponade in refractory bleeding. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting should be reserved as salvage therapy. In this article, we aim to provide an evidence-based comprehensive review of the major advancements in endoscopic hemostatic techniques and clinical outcomes.

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.

Novel endoscopic papillectomy for reducing postoperative adverse events (with videos)

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic adenoma can potentially transform into adenocarcinoma, so it is recommended to be resected surgically or endoscopically. Endoscopic papillectomy is one of the main treatments for papillary adenoma, and bleeding, perforation, and pancreatitis are the most frequent and critical adverse events that restrict its wider use. There is no standard procedure for endoscopic papillectomy yet. The procedure is relevant to postoperative adverse events.

AIM

To reduce the postoperative adverse event rates and improve patients' postoperative condition, we developed a standard novel procedure for endoscopic papillectomy.

METHODS

The novel endoscopic papillectomy had two main modifications based on the conventional method: The isolation of bile from pancreatic juice with a bile duct stent and wound surface protection with metal clips and fibrin glue. We performed a single-center retrospective comparison study on the novel and conventional methods to examine the feasibility of the novel method for reducing postoperative adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 76 patients, of whom 23 underwent the novel procedure and 53 underwent the conventional procedure, were retrospectively evaluated in this study. The postoperative bleeding and pancreatitis rates of the novel method were significantly lower than those of the conventional method (0 vs 20.75%, P = 0.028, and 17.4% vs 41.5%, P = 0.042, respectively). After applying the novel method, the most critical adverse event, perforation, was entirely prevented, compared to a prevalence of 5.66% with the conventional method. Several postoperative symptoms, including fever, rapid pulse, and decrease in hemoglobin level, were significantly less frequent in the novel group (P = 0.042, 0.049, and 0.014, respectively). Overall, the total adverse event rate of the novel method was lower (0 vs 24.5%, P = 0.007) than that of the conventional method.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent the novel procedure had lower postoperative adverse event rates. This study demonstrates the potential efficacy and safety of the novel endoscopic papillectomy in reducing postoperative adverse events.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Therapies for Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence and best practice advice statements regarding the use of endoscopic therapies in treating patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This review is framed around the 10 best practice advice points agreed upon by the authors, which reflect landmark and recent published articles in this field. This expert review also reflects the experiences of the authors who are gastroenterologists with extensive experience in managing and teaching others to treat patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopic therapy should achieve hemostasis in the majority of patients with NVUGIB. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Initial management of the patient with NVUGIB should focus on resuscitation, triage, and preparation for upper endoscopy. After stabilization, patients with NVUGIB should undergo endoscopy with endoscopic treatment of sites with active bleeding or high-risk stigmata for rebleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Endoscopists should be familiar with the indications, efficacy, and limitations of currently available tools and techniques for endoscopic hemostasis, and be comfortable applying conventional thermal therapy and placing hemoclips. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Monopolar hemostatic forceps with low-voltage coagulation can be an effective alternative to other mechanical and thermal treatments for NVUGIB, particularly for ulcers in difficult locations or those with a rigid and fibrotic base. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Hemostasis using an over-the-scope clip should be considered in select patients with NVUGIB, in whom conventional electrosurgical coagulation and hemostatic clips are unsuccessful or predicted to be ineffective. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Hemostatic powders are a noncontact endoscopic option that may be considered in cases of massive bleeding with poor visualization, for salvage therapy, and for diffuse bleeding from malignancy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Hemostatic powder should be preferentially used as a rescue therapy and not for primary hemostasis, except in cases of malignant bleeding or massive bleeding with inability to perform thermal therapy or hemoclip placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should understand the risk of bleeding from therapeutic endoscopic interventions (eg, endoluminal resection and endoscopic sphincterotomy) and be familiar with the endoscopic tools and techniques to treat intraprocedural bleeding and minimize the risk of delayed bleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: In patients with endoscopically refractory NVUGIB, the etiology of bleeding (peptic ulcer disease, unknown source, post surgical); patient factors (hemodynamic instability, coagulopathy, multi-organ failure, surgical history); risk of rebleeding; and potential adverse events should be taken into consideration when deciding on a case-by-case basis between transcatheter arterial embolization and surgery. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization of high-risk ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy is not encouraged.

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.

Management of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Guideline Recommendations From the International Consensus Group

DESCRIPTION

This update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations.

METHODS

An international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Preendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.

Potential role of new technological innovations in nonvariceal hemorrhage

The present armamentarium of endoscopic hemostatic therapy for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage includes injection, electrocautery and clips. There are newer endoscopic options such as hemostatic sprays, endoscopic suturing and modifications of current options including coagulation forceps and over-the-scope clips. Peptic hemorrhage is the most prevalent type of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage and traditional endoscopic interventions have demonstrated significant hemostasis success. However, the hemostatic success rate is less for other entities such as Dieulafoy’s lesions and bleeding from malignant lesions. Novel innovations such as endoscopic submucosal dissection and peroral endoscopic myotomy has spawned a need for dependable hemostasis. Gastric antral vascular ectasias are associated with chronic gastrointestinal bleeding and usually treated by standard argon plasma coagulation (APC), but newer modalities such as radiofrequency ablation, banding, cryotherapy and hybrid APC have been utilized as well. We will opine on whether the newer hemostatic modalities have generated success when traditional modalities fail and should any of these modalities be routinely available in the endoscopic toolbox.