Emerging endoscopic therapies for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Efficacy and safety of CounterFlow in animal models of hemorrhage

LAY SUMMARY

The efficacy of current hemostatic technologies is limited by several factors. Outward blood flow washes hemostatic drugs away from the wound, and hemostatic drugs often require focus, training, and time to use correctly, are highly specific to one type of injury, or pose severe safety risks. CounterFlow is a novel product that could potentially save military and civilian lives by stopping heavy bleeding from a variety of organs and other bodily locations that current technology cannot easily treat. Upon contact with blood, CounterFlow releases bursts of gas to safely self-propel bio-degradable clot-forming and clot-stabilizing drugs against blood flow, delivering them to the source of bleeding. This unique mechanism allows CounterFlow to be applied quickly to a wide assortment of wounds and to act effectively with little management after application. CounterFlow was tested in multiple animal models representing common and deadly bleeding scenarios, including internal bleeding, care under fire without compression, and surgical bleeding, and it was found to outperform current care options by stopping bleeds faster and increasing survival times. CounterFlow is also safe to use and biocompatible. This narrative review summarizes studies testing the effectiveness and safety of CounterFlow, discusses useful applications, and describes future plans for the product.

Use of topical mineral powder as monotherapy for treatment of active peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Hemospray (Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC, USA), a hemostatic powder, as monotherapy for active peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

In this prospective, multicenter, single-arm study, patients with Forrest Ia or Ib peptic ulcers underwent endoscopic application of Hemospray as treatment of first intent. Effectiveness endpoints were successful hemostasis at the end of the index endoscopy, recurrent bleeding within 72 hours and from 72 hours to 30 days, adverse events requiring reintervention or resulting in morbidity or mortality, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Hemospray was successfully administered in 98.5% of patients (66/67). Hemostasis was achieved at the index endoscopy in 90.9% of patients (60/66) with Hemospray alone and in an additional 4 patients treated with additional modalities, yielding an overall hemostasis rate of 97.0% (64/66). Rebleeding occurred in 13.3% of patients (8/60), 5 within 72 hours and 3 between 72 hours and 30 days. Two cases of perforation and 2 patient deaths occurred during the study, but none of these cases or any other adverse events were attributed to the use of Hemospray. The rate of early rebleeding was significantly higher in patients with Forrest Ia ulcers compared with patients with Forrest Ib ulcers. Higher rates of early bleeding in patients with Forrest Ia ulcers is consistent with results from studies where Hemospray was used as rescue after failure of conventional methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemospray is an effective initial treatment for patients with active peptic ulcer bleeding, but care should be taken to monitor for recurrent bleeding. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01306864.).

Management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatments

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is a common type of upper gastrointestinal emergency with high risk of life-threatening conditions. Nowadays some standard guidelines for the treatments of NVUGIB have been established based on endoscopic therapies, including injection of glues or sclerosing agents, coiling, band ligation, and thermal therapies. Nevertheless, some patients are refractory to standard endoscopic treatments. We have noticed that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatments have been performed by some endoscopists in certain conditions. This review aims to evaluate the role of EUS-guided treatments in the management of NVUGIB. We performed a MEDLINE/PubMed search, and relevant studies were extracted and examined. According to the existing literature, the most common lesions were Dieulafoy's lesion, pancreatic pseudoaneurysms, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. EUS-guided treatments mainly include injection, mechanical therapies, and combined therapies, and seem to be a promising technique in the management of NVUGIB, especially for refractory bleeding.

Study on the preventive effect of intravenous esomeprazole in the management of nonvarices upper gastrointestinal bleeding

This retrospective study investigated the preventive effect of intravenous esomeprazole (IVEO) in the prevention of nonvarices upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NUGIB).This study enrolled 130 patients with NUGIB and all of them underwent successful endoscopic hemostasis, of which 65 cases received routine management and IVEO (Group A) and the other 65 cases received routine management alone (Group B). The primary outcome (recurrent bleeding rate within 72-hour, 7-day, and 30-day), and secondary outcomes ((all-cause mortality, bleeding-related mortality, blood transfused, hospital stay (day), and incidence of adverse events)) were compared between 2 groups.Patients in the group A showed lower recurrent bleeding rate within 72-hour(P < .05), 7-day (P < .05), and 30-day (P < .05), than that of patients in the group B. However, no significant differences were identified in all-cause mortality(P = .26), bleeding-related mortality (P = .57), blood transfused (P = .33), and hospital stay (P = .74) between 2 groups. In addition, both groups had similar safety profile.This study found that routine management and IVEO was superior to the routine management alone for preventing the recurrent bleeding rate after successful endoscopic hemostasis in patients with NUGIB.

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.

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.

Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

In the intensive care unit, vigilance is needed to manage nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. A focused history and physical examination must be completed to identify inciting factors and the need for hemodynamic stabilization. Although not universally used, risk stratification tools such as the Blatchford and Rockall scores can facilitate triage and management. Urgent evaluation for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeds requires prompt respiratory assessment, and identification of hemodynamic instability with fluid resuscitation and blood transfusions if necessary. Future studies are needed to evaluate the indication, safety, and efficacy of emerging endoscopic techniques.