The use of hemostatic spray as an adjunct to conventional hemostatic measures in high-risk nonvariceal upper GI bleeding (with video)

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.

Hepatic arterial haemorrhage caused by duodenal ulcer

A man in his late 60s with prior Hartman's procedure underwent colostomy takedown and complex ventral hernia repair. He subsequently developed gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding from a duodenal bulb ulcer. Despite five endoscopic procedures aimed at achieving haemostasis, including placement of an over-the-scope clip, and four endovascular embolisations (inferior and superior pancreaticoduodenal, right gastroepiploic and gastroduodenal arteries), the patient continued to experience episodic, haemodynamically significant bleeding. He eventually required emergency exploratory laparotomy, where the proper hepatic artery was identified as the source (a previously unreported phenomenon). He underwent antrectomy and proper hepatic artery ligation. This case highlights the need to interrogate all portions of the hepatic vasculature in the treatment of refractory GI bleeding.

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.

Acute Upper Non-variceal and Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common surgical emergency requiring hospital admission and associated with high morbidity and mortality. Appropriate decision-making is essential to make a prompt diagnosis, accurate risk assessment, and proper resuscitation of patients with gastrointestinal bleeding. Despite multiple randomized trials and meta-analyses, there is still controversy on various management issues like appropriate risk stratification, the timing of endoscopy, choosing an appropriate endoscopic, and radiological intervention in these groups of patients. As the usage of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelet, and antithrombotic agents is common in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, the physician is challenged with proper management of these drugs. The present review summarizes the current strategies for risk stratification, localization of bleeding source, endoscopic and radiological intervention in patients with acute nonvariceal upper GI, middle GI, and lower GI bleeding.

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.

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.

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.

Characteristic of Stomach Ulcers, Complicated by Bleeding

Background. The benign nature of the gastric ulcer, determined during the initial video esophagogastroduodenoscopy (VEGD) in the presence of a hemorrhage or under the conditions of unstable hemostasis, is not a permanent characteristic of the pathological process, since most examinations do not include multifocal biopsy due to the danger of recurrent bleeding.

Objectives: to evaluate the inflammatory changes, regenerative abilities of the peri-ulcer area and to predict malignization in the nearest post-hemorrhagic period.

Methods. The work contains the examination data (VEGD, brush biopsy, morphological and immunohistochemical examinations) of 49 patients urgently admitted to the surgery with gastrointestinal bleeding, and further verification of gastric ulcer. Entry criteria were bleeding of the ulcer in the gastric mucosa, located in the antrum or the lesser curve with low risk of recurrent bleeding (Forrest 2C), presence of Helicobacter pylori.

Results. Brush biopsy allowed determining the benign nature of ulcerative lesions in 98 % of the patients during the two-day period following the first VEGD. Morphological study revealed dysplasia at the edge of ulcerative lesion with first signs of regeneration in 14.3 % of the patients. In the presence of dysplasia, we noted a vibrant response (+++) with COX-2 (×400), even if the ulcerous defect was smaller than 1.0 cm.

Conclusion. Considering our results, it is necessary to develop a strict algorithm for dynamic follow-up of patients with gastric ulcers, complicated by bleeding.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03061604.

Role of endoscopy in acute gastrointestinal bleeding in real clinical practice: An evidence-based review

Although upper gastrointestinal bleeding is usually segregated from lower gastrointestinal bleeding, and guidelines for gastrointestinal bleeding are divided into two separate sections, they may not be distinguished from each other in clinical practice. Most patients are first observed with signs of bleeding such as hematemesis, melena, and hematochezia. When a patient with these symptoms presents to the emergency room, endoscopic diagnosis and treatment are considered together with appropriate initial resuscitation. Especially, in cases of variceal bleeding, it is important for the prognosis that the endoscopy is performed immediately after the patient stabilizes. In cases of suspected lower gastrointestinal bleeding, full colonoscopy after bowel preparation is effective in distinguishing the cause of the bleeding and treating with hemostasis. The therapeutic aspect of endoscopy, using the mechanical method alone or injection with a certain modality rather than injection alone, can increase the success rate of bleeding control. Therefore, it is important to consider the origin of bleeding and how to approach it. In this article, we aim to review the role of endoscopy in diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis in patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding in a real clinical setting.

Advances in management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review new advances in managing nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

RECENT FINDINGS

Implementation of various scoring systems in combination with video capsule endoscopy assists in stratifying and managing nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. New techniques such as thermocoagulation and hemoclips are useful to treat bleeding.

SUMMARY

The advancement of methods and procedures in managing nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding has decreased mortality of patients presenting with this type of hemorrhage. In this chapter, we will be discussing various scores to stratify nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding and techniques to stop 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.

The Use and Safety of a Novel Haemostatic Spray in the Endoscopic Management of Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Children

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

Advanced endohaemostatic technique performance and experience is extremely variable in distribution amongst paediatric endoscopists. Haemostatic spray (Hemospray), a novel endohaemostatic topically applied powder has the advantage of extreme ease of use and; hence may lower the threshold of competency required by the endoscopist thereby potentially reducing mortality. The aim of the study is to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and the safety of haemostatic spray in paediatric patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB).

METHODS

Prospective enrolment of children with AUGIB (Group 1) occurred, either as primary therapy or as an adjunct to standard endohaemostatic therapeutic techniques. Patients were assessed for likely need for endohaemostatic intervention of >8 of 24 of the paediatric Sheffield AUGIB score.A follow-up endoscopy occurred in those deemed to have clinical need pre-discharge. For comparison, another group (Group 2) of patients, who received conventional endohaemostatic treatment in the preceding 36 months, were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 20 applications of Hemospray occurred in 17 patients (8 boys, median (range) age: 6.5 years (2 days to 17.75 years) and a total of 29 patients were enrolled in Group 2 (16 boys, median [range] age: 5.1 [0.25-17.0]). All patients tolerated haemostatic spray applications with no adverse events. The haemostatic spray group achieved 100% initial haemostasis with 18% rebleeding rate, although only a 6% failure rate after re-application. In the conventional group, similar 100% initial haemostasis was achieved with 24% rebleeding rate and 7% failure rate necessitating surgical interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

This paediatric series suggests that monotherapy with haemostatic spray is as effective as conventional approaches in the management of AUGIB.

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.

Endotherapy of Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding is common and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We discuss the endoscopic assessment of peptic ulcers and the rationale for treatment. We also review the evidence for the available endoscopic therapies, both individually and in combination, to draw conclusions on the optimum endoscopic management of peptic ulcer bleeding.

TC-325 versus the conventional combined technique for endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcers with high-risk bleeding stigmata: A randomized pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Preliminary studies on a new topical hemostatic agent, TC-325, have shown its safety and effectiveness in treating active upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. However, to date there have been no randomized trials comparing TC-325 with the conventional combined technique (CCT). Our pilot study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of TC-325 with those of CCT in treating peptic ulcers with active bleeding or high-risk stigmata.

METHODS

This was a comparative randomized study of patients with upper GI bleeding who had Forrest class I, IIA or IIB ulcers.

RESULTS

Altogether 20 patients with a mean age of 70 years (range 23-87 years) were recruited, including 16 men, with a mean hemoglobin of 97 g/L. Initial hemostasis was successful in 19 (95.0%) patients, including 90.0% (9/10) in the TC-325 group and 100% (10/10) in the CCT group. TC-325 monotherapy failed to stop bleeding in a patient with Forrest IB posterior duodenal wall ulcer. Rebleeding was seen in 33.3% (3/9) of the patients in the TC-325 group and 10.0% (1/10) in the CCT group. One patient required angio-embolization therapy while three had successful conventional endotherapy. Two patients from the TC-325 group had serious adverse events that were not procedure- or therapy-related. In patients with Forrest IIA or IIB ulcers, five received TC-325 monotherapy; none had rebleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Our pilot study showed that TC-325 has a tendency towards a higher rebleeding rate than CCT, when treating actively bleeding ulcers. Larger trials are necessary for definitive results.