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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Analysis of Reported Adverse Events Related to Hemospray: An FDA MAUDE Database Study

BACKGROUND

Topical hemostatic powder is a mineral powder that forms an adherent barrier and coagulates active bleeding in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Hemospray is the first hemostatic powder approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States. Hemospray has been increasingly used to manage GI bleeding. However, data on the adverse events of hemostatic powders are lacking. Therefore, we aim to report and analyze adverse events associated with Hemospray using the FDA's "Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience" database.

METHODS

We analyzed the postmarketing surveillance data from the FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database for Hemospray, initially known as TC-325, from June 2018 through April 2022. Results of the search were classified into device-related technical issues, patient-related adverse events and health care staff-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Five hundred two medical device reporting claims were identified from June 2018 through April 2022. Seven duplicate claims were identified, and some claims included more than one event type. Therefore, there were 558 device-related problems, 28 patient-related adverse events, and 2 adverse events in health care staff members. The most common device-related problems were activation failure or failure to fire (n = 385, 70.0%) and obstruction of carbon dioxide flow (n = 121, 21.7). The most common patient-related adverse events included tissue injury or bleeding (n = 21) and perforation (n = 5).

CONCLUSION

Although Hemospray is a valuable tool in the armamentarium for endoscopists in managing GI bleeding, endoscopists must be mindful of deice-related problems and potential patient-related adverse events.

Updates on the Prevention and Management of Post-Polypectomy Bleeding in the Colon

Post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) remains a significant procedure-related complication, with multiple risk factors determining the risk including patient demographics, polyp characteristics, endoscopist expertise, and techniques of polypectomy. Immediate PPB is usually treated promptly, but management of delayed PPB can be challenging. Cold snare polypectomy is the optimal technique for small sessile polyps with hot snare polypectomy for pedunculated and large sessile polyps. Topical hemostatic powders and gels are being investigated for the prevention and management of PPB. Further studies are needed to compare these topical agents with conventional therapy.

Endoscopic Management of Tumor Bleeding: Techniques and Strategies

Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal (GI) tumor-related bleeding is challenging for many reasons including high rebleeding rates, poor tissue response to endoscopic therapies, altered wound healing and underlying coagulopathy. However, endoscopic treatment may help reduce transfusion requirements, avoid surgery, and provide a temporary bridge to oncologic therapy. This article explores various endoscopic techniques in managing tumor bleeding from more traditional approaches of using thermal or mechanical therapy with injection therapy to newer topical agents.

Hemostatic powder for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Recent research advances

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a clinically common emergency condition. The common causes of AUGIB are peptic ulcer and esophagogastric variceal bleeding. Despite continuous improvements in endoscopic hemostasis techniques, endoscopic treatment is still unsuccessful in 5%-15% of patients. Hemostatic powder, a new drug for endoscopic hemostasis that is sprayed on the bleeding site with the assistance of an air pump, can absorb water to promote clotting substance aggregation and then adhere over the lesion, forming a mechanical barrier and then achieving hemostasis. It is convenient to spray hemostatic powder under endoscopy, where precise positioning is not warranted. The immediate hemostasis rate of hemostatic powder is often high, and it can be used as a remedy after the failure of conventional hemostasis. However, until now, there have been no recommendations in China regarding the use of hemostatic powder for the treatment of AUGIB. This article summarizes the mechanism, clinical applicability, and side effects of five major types of hemostatic powder by reviewing the existing evidence, with an aim to strengthen endoscopists' understanding of this drug.

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.

Over-the-scope-clip (OTSC®) as a rescue treatment for gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to peptic ulcer disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

over-the-scope-clips (OTSC®) have been proposed as a rescue treatment for bleeding peptic ulcers. However, their effectiveness has not been evaluated in Spain.

METHODS

this retrospective and single-center study (January 2018-December 2021) assessed the technical success, clinical success and safety of the device within 30 days. All patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to a peptic ulcer and treated with the OTSC® clip (OVESCO) as a rescue therapy were included in the study.

RESULTS

a total of eleven patients were included in the study, nine due to rebleeding and two due to persistent bleeding. Technical success was 81.9 % (9/11, confidence interval [CI] 95 %: 52-95 %). The per-protocol and intention-to-treat clinical success were 88.9 % (8/9, CI 95 %: 57-98 %) and 72.7 % (8/11, CI 95 %: 43-90 %), respectively. No device-related adverse effects were recorded.

CONCLUSION

the OTSC® clip was an effective and safe rescue therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers.

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.

Endoscopy for the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding caused by malignancy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding secondary to malignancy can be challenging. Endoscopy is the gold standard to diagnose and treat gastrointestinal bleeding but clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with malignancy-related bleeding are not well understood. This study aims to look at clinical characteristics, endoscopic findings, safety and clinical outcomes of endoscopic interventions for GI malignancy-related bleeding.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed outcomes of patients with confirmed GI malignancies who underwent endoscopy for GI bleeding at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2010 and 2019. Cox hazard analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with survival.

RESULTS

A total of 313 patients were included, with median age of 59 years; 74.8% were male. The stomach (30.0%) was the most common tumor location. Active bleeding was evident endoscopically in 47.3% of patients. Most patients (77.3%) did not receive endoscopic treatment. Of the patients who received endoscopic treatment, 57.7% had hemostasis. No endoscopy-related adverse events were recorded. Endoscopic treatment was associated with hemostasis (P < 0.001), but not decreased recurrent bleeding or mortality. Absence of active bleeding on endoscopy, stable hemodynamic status at presentation, lower cancer stage, and surgical intervention were associated with improved survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that endoscopy is a safe diagnostic tool in this patient population; while endoscopic treatments may help achieve hemostasis, it may not decrease the risk of recurrent bleeding or improve survival.

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.

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.

Endoscopic management of delayed bleeding after polypectomy of small colorectal polyps: two or more clips may be safe

Background

The resection of small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm) is routine for endoscopists. However, the management of one of its main complications, namely delayed (within 14 days) postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB), has not been clearly demonstrated. We aimed to assess the role of coloscopy in the management of DPPB from small colorectal polyps and identify the associated factors for initial hemostatic success.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of 69 patients who developed DPPB after the removal of colorectal polyps of ≤10 mm and underwent hemostatic colonoscopy at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, China) between April 2013 and June 2021. Demographics, clinical variables, and colonoscopic features were collected independently. We applied univariate and multivariate analyses to assess factors associated with initial hemostatic success.

Results

General colonoscopy without oral bowel preparation was successfully performed in all the patients, with a median duration of 23.9 (12.5–37.9) minutes. Among 69 patients, 62 (89.9%) achieved hemostasis after initial hemostatic colonoscopy and 7 (10.1%) rebled 2.7 ± 1.1 days after initial colonoscopic hemostasis and had rebleeding successfully controlled by one additional colonoscopy. No colonoscopy-related adverse events occurred. Multivariate analysis showed that management with at least two clips was the only independent prognostic factor for initial hemostatic success (odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.03–0.91; P = 0.04). All the patients who had at least two clips placed at the initial hemostatic colonoscopy required no further hemostatic intervention.

Conclusions

Colonoscopy is a safe, effective, and not too time-consuming approach for the management of patients with DPPB of small colorectal polyps and management with the placement of at least two hemoclips may be beneficial.

Efficacy of hemostatic powders in lower gastrointestinal bleeding: Clinical series and literature review

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

to revise our series of patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding treated with hemostatic powders and to provide a pooled estimate of their efficacy based on the current literature.

METHODS

Sixty-five patients underwent topical endoscopic application of hemostatic powder between 2016 and 2020. The primary endpoint was treatment success, with 7- and 30-day rebleeding rate, adverse events and mortality as secondary outcomes. Literature review was based on computerized bibliographic search on the main databases through December 2020. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Overall, the powder was applied as monotherapy in 37 patients (56.9%), as combination therapy in 15 patients (23.4%), and as rescue therapy in 13 cases (19.9%). Hemostasis was achieved in 100% of patients. Rebleeding rate at 7- and 30-day was 7.7% and 9.2%, respectively. A total of 10 studies with 259 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 96.3% (93.4%-99.2%) patients, whereas pooled 7- and 30-day rebleeding rates were 9.6% (4.5%-14.6%) and 12.9% (7.2%-18.5%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

In the recent years, topical hemostatic powders have been used for the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of this study was to report on the use of an hemostatic powder (Hemospray®), outside regular hours, by on-call endoscopists during urgent endoscopic procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, consecutive patients having undergone an urgent endoscopy with the use of Hemospray® from November 2015 to December 2018 in the Paris and suburbs area were included. We collected clinical, biological and endoscopic variables. The outcomes such as the recurrence, repeat endoscopy and hemostatic treatment need, complications and survival were also collected.

RESULTS

A total of 152 patients (mean 65 years old, 70.4% male) were included. Amongst the 31 endoscopists, 11 were "more experienced", and performed 48% of the endoscopies. The most common causes of bleeding were peptic ulcer (47.7%), malignancy (22.2%) and esophagitis (12.4%). Most bleedings originated from the upper GI tract (95.0%). Hemospray® was used as a salvage therapy in 60.8% of cases. Other hemostatic techniques were used in 52.9% of cases. Immediate bleeding cessation was noted in 79.0% of cases, recurrence in 39.9% of cases, and 26.4% of patients benefited from a repeat endoscopic hemostasis. 34 (23.0%) patients required a non-endoscopic treatment. At day 30, the survival rate was 71.6%. One complication was reported (perforation).

CONCLUSIONS

Hemostatic powder application by on-call endoscopists outside regular hours is technically feasible, but comes with a high risk of rebleeding in severely ill patients.

Effectiveness of hemostatic powders in lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of hemostatic powders in the management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). We aimed to provide a pooled estimate of their effectiveness and safety based on the current literature. Patients and methods  Literature review was based on computerized bibliographic search of the main databases through to December 2020. Immediate hemostasis, rebleeding rate, adverse events, and mortality were the outcomes of the analysis. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model. Results  A total of 9 studies with 194 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 95 % of patients (95 % confidence interval [CI] 91.6 %-98.5 %), with no difference based on treatment strategy or bleeding etiology. Pooled 7- and 30-day rebleeding rates were 10.9 % (95 %CI 4.2 %-17.6 %) and 14.3 % (95 %CI 7.3 %-21.2 %), respectively. Need for embolization and surgery were 1.7 % (95 %CI 0 %-3.5 %) and 2.4 % (95 %CI 0.3 %-4.6 %), respectively. Overall, two patients (1.9 %, 95 %CI 0 %-3.8 %) experienced mild abdominal pain after powder application, and three bleeding-related deaths (2.3 %, 95 %CI 0.2 %-4.3 %) were registered in the included studies. Conclusion  Novel hemostatic powders represent a user-friendly and effective tool in the management of lower gastrointestinal 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.

Towards personalised management for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Guidelines from national and international professional societies on upper gastrointestinal bleeding highlight the important clinical issues but do not always identify specific management strategies pertaining to individual patients. Optimal treatment should consider the personal needs of an individual patient and the pertinent resources and experience available at the point of care. This article integrates international guidelines and consensus into three stages of management: pre-endoscopic assessment and treatment, endoscopic evaluation and haemostasis and postendoscopic management. We emphasise the need for personalised management strategies based on patient characteristics, nature of bleeding lesions and the clinical setting including available resources.

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

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

Management and Outcomes of Bleeding Within 30 Days of Colonic Polypectomy in a Large, Real-Life, Multicenter Cohort Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Management of delayed (within 30 days) postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB) has not been standardized. Patients often undergo colonoscopies that do not provide any benefit. We aimed to identify factors associated with therapeutic intervention and active bleeding after DPPB.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 548 patients with bleeding within 30 days after an index polypectomy (DPPB; 71.9% underwent colonoscopy, 2.6% underwent primary angiographic embolization, and 25.5% were managed without intervention) at 6 tertiary centers in Spain, from January 2010 through September 2018. We collected demographic and medical data from patients. The primary outcomes were the need for therapeutic intervention and the presence of active bleeding during colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A need for therapeutic intervention was associated independently with the use of antithrombotic agents, hemoglobin decrease greater than 2 g/dL, hemodynamic instability, and comorbidities (P < .05). The bleeding point during colonoscopy was identified in 344 patients; 74 of these patients (21.5%) had active bleeding. Active use of anticoagulants (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), left-sided polyps (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1-3.8), prior use of electrocautery (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.1), and pedunculated polyp morphology (OR, 1.8, 95% CI, 1-3.2) significantly increased the risk of encountering active bleeding. We developed a visual nomogram to estimate the risk of active bleeding. Overall, 43% of the cohort did not require any hemostatic therapy. Rebleeding (<6%) and transfusion requirements were low in those managed without intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

In a study of patients with DPPB, we found that almost half do not warrant any therapeutic intervention. Colonoscopy often is overused for patients with DPPB. We identified independent risk factors for active bleeding that might be used to identify patients most likely to benefit from colonoscopy.

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.

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.

Diagnosis and Management of Non-Variceal Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage: A Review of Current Guidelines and Future Perspectives

Non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide which is encountered in the ambulatory and hospital settings. Hemorrhage form the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is categorized as upper GIB, small bowel bleeding (also formerly referred to as obscure GIB) or lower GIB. Although the etiologies of GIB are variable, a strong, consistent risk factor is use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Advances in the endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of GIB have led to improved outcomes. We present an updated review of the current practices regarding the diagnosis and management of non-variceal GIB, and possible future directions.

Updates on management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Over-the-scope clips are cost-effective in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding

Background

A recent prospective randomised controlled trial ('STING') showed superiority of over-the-scope clips compared to standard treatment in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding. Cost-effectiveness studies on haemostasis with over-the-scope clips have not been reported so far.

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the higher efficacy of the over-the-scope clips treatment outweighs the higher costs of the device compared to standard clips.

Methods

For the analysis, the study population of the STING trial was used. Costs for the hospital stay in total as well as treatment-related costs were obtained. The average cost-effectiveness ratio, representing the mean costs per designated outcome, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, expressing the additional costs of a new treatment strategy per difference in outcome were calculated. The designated outcome was defined as successful haemostasis without rebleeding within seven days, which was the primary endpoint of the STING trial. Average cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated for total costs of the hospital stay as well as the haemostasis treatment alone. The cost-effectiveness analysis is taken from the perspective of the care provider.Results: Total costs and treatment-related costs per patient were 13,007.07 € in the standard group vs 12,808.56 € in the over-the-scope clip group (p = 0.812) and 2084.98 € vs 1984.71 € respectively (p = 0.663). The difference was not statistically significant. Total costs per successful haemostasis (average cost-effectiveness ratio) were 30,677.05 € vs 15,104.43 € and 4917.41 € vs 2340.46 € for the haemostasis treatment. The additional costs per successful haemostasis with over-the-scope clip treatment (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) is -468.18 € for the whole treatment and -236.49€ for the haemostasis treatment.

Conclusions

Over-the-scope clip treatment is cost-effective in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding.

Endoscopic Management of Post-Polypectomy Bleeding

Post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) is one of the most common complications of endoscopic polypectomy. There are multiple risk factors related to patient and polyp characteristics that should be considered. In most cases, immediate PPB can be effectively managed endoscopically when recognized and managed promptly. Delayed PPB can manifest in a myriad of ways. In severe delayed PPB, resuscitation for hemodynamic stabilization should be prioritized, followed by endoscopic evaluation and therapy once the patient is stabilized. Future areas of research in PPB include the risks of direct oral anticoagulants and of specific electrosurgical settings for hot-snare polypectomy vs. cold-snare polypectomy, benefits of closure of post-polypectomy mucosal defects using through-the-scope clips, and prospective comparative evaluation of newer hemostasis agents such as hemostatic spray powder and over-the-scope clips.