Experience with the use of a hemostatic powder in 152 patients undergoing urgent endoscopy for gastrointestinal bleeding

Turn over the new leaf of the treatment in peptic ulcer bleeding: a review of the literature

Peptic ulcer bleeding is the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, which has a high mortality risk. The standard therapy for acute peptic ulcer bleeding combines medication administration and endoscopic therapies. Both pharmacologic and endoscopic therapies have developed continuously in the past few decades. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) already reached a high efficacy in ulcer healing and have been widely used in the past few decades. Endoscopic hemostasis, which includes local epinephrine injection, heater probe coagulation, use of hemostatic clips, and/or band ligation, is highly effective with an overall hemostatic success rate of 85%-90%. However, 10%-20% of patients could not be cured by the current standard combination treatment. Recurrent ulcer bleeding, despite an initial successful hemostasis, is also a big problem for longer hospitalization stays, higher mortality, and higher complication rates, especially for malignant ulcer bleeding. How to manage all types of peptic ulcer bleeding and how to prevent early recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding remain unresolved clinical problems. Recently, several novel medications and endoscopic methods have been developed. Potassium competitive acid blockers have shown a stronger and longer acid suppression than PPI. Hemostatic powder spray and hemostatic gel emulsion are novel hemostatic weapons with emerging evidence, which are potential missing pieces of the puzzle. This literature review will go through the development of endoscopic hemostasis to the prospects of novel endoscopic treatments.

Ankaferd blood stopper: A novel additional strategy for less experienced gastroenterologists in gastrointestinal bleeding treatment

The Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS) proves effective in managing various bleedings, particularly in surgical and dental procedures. This study assesses ABS efficacy endoscopically by less-experienced endoscopists for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGB). Between 2016 and 2021, our hospital's Gastroenterology Department Endoscopy Unit conducted a retrospective data analysis of 653 patients who underwent endoscopy for NVUGB. The study included 202 patients who underwent endoscopic interventions performed by endoscopists with less than 3 years of experience. Based on the method used for endoscopic hemostasis, we classified those treated with ABS (either alone or as a second method) as group 1. In contrast, we classified patients treated with non-ABS hemostatic methods into Group 2. The study included 202 patients, with 96 (47.52%) in Group 1 and 106 (52.48%) in Group 2. All patients in Group 1 achieved bleeding control, while 4 patients in Group 2 initially did not achieve bleeding control; however, bleeding control was subsequently established following ABS administration. After 1 month of follow-up, mortality occurred in 3 out of 202 patients (1.48%), and all these cases were in Group 2. There is a significant difference in the need for blood transfusion between the groups (P < .001). Regarding the bleeding source, bulbus ulcer and gastric cancer were more prevalent in Group 2. On the other hand, although statistical significance was not reached in the comparison of rebleeding rates between groups, numerically, a higher incidence of recurrent bleeding was observed in Group 2 (Group 1: 3 [3.1%], Group 2: 8 [7.5%]; P = .167). Additionally, a similar relationship was noted among intensive care admissions (Group 1: 5 [5.2%]; Group 2: 7 [6.6%]; P = .675). In the group that used ABS, there were significantly higher rates of hypotension, tachycardia, syncope, and the need for transfusion than in the other group. In medical practice, this distinction often stems from the shared preference of clinicians to use ABS as a salvage method in cases of more severe bleeding. Considering all the findings, it is evident that using ABS through endoscopy in cases of NVUGIB significantly improves procedural success, irrespective of the endoscopist's experience level.

Efficacy of topical hemostatic agents in malignancy-related GI bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite advances in endoscopic therapies, malignancy-related GI bleeding remains difficult to manage with high rates of treatment failure and rebleeding. Topical hemostatic agents (THAs) are easier to apply to the wide bleeding surface of tumors. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of THAs in malignancy-related GI bleeding.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases to identify studies reporting on the use of THAs in malignancy-related GI bleeding. The primary outcome was the achievement of hemostasis; secondary outcomes were early rebleeding (≤3 days), delayed rebleeding (>3 days), aggregate rebleeding, all-cause mortality, and GI bleeding-related mortality. A meta-analysis of proportions was done for all outcomes.

RESULTS

Out of 355 citations, 16 studies with 530 patients were included. Primary hemostasis was achieved in 94.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.5-96.0). Early rebleeding was seen in 13.9% (95% CI, 9.7-19.4) and delayed rebleeding in 11.4% (95% CI, 5.8-21.1). Aggregate rebleeding was seen in 24.2% (95% CI, 18.5-31.0). All-cause mortality was 33.1% (95% CI, 23.7-44.0), whereas GI bleeding-related mortality occurred in 5.9% (95% CI, 2.2%-14.8).

CONCLUSIONS

THAs are highly effective for achieving primary hemostasis in malignancy-related GI bleeding. It should be considered as an alternative to traditional endotherapy methods in malignancy-related GI bleeding. Future studies should be designed to evaluate its efficacy and safety as a primary method of hemostasis as compared with traditional endotherapy measures.

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.

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.