Hemostatic Powder vs Standard Endoscopic Treatment for Gastrointestinal Tumor Bleeding: A Multicenter Randomized Trial

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.

Valuing innovative endoscopic techniques: hemostatic powder for the treatment of GI tumor bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Access to new endoscopic treatment modalities often depends on price. To resolve this gap and therefore help to ensure that care delivery can occur on a clinical basis, we aimed to establish the value to insurers of novel hemostatic powder to treat GI tumor bleeding.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model developed to assess the impact of endoscopic intervention on the risk of 30-day readmission for GI bleeding from an insurer perspective was adapted to assess GI tumor bleeding with hemostatic powder or standard endoscopic therapy. Costs were derived from Medicare populations. Outcomes were derived from a recent multicenter randomized clinical trial.

RESULTS

Costs ranged from $651 to $1613 to treat upper GI tumor bleeding and from $531 to $1014 to treat lower GI tumor bleeding based on risk reduction in 30-day hospital readmission for recurrent bleeding. These valuations should represent medical device and incremental facility costs in addition to incremental physician and staff time.

CONCLUSIONS

Coverage for novel endoscopic hemostatic powder therapy seems cost-saving to insurers.

Learning curve of achieving competency in emergency endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: how much experience is necessary?

OBJECTIVES

The management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) has seen rapid advancements with revolutionising innovations. However, insufficient data exist on the necessary number of emergency endoscopies needed to achieve competency in haemostatic interventions.

DESIGN

We retrospectively analysed all oesophagogastroduodenoscopies with signs of recent haemorrhage performed between 2015 and 2022 at our university hospital. A learning curve was created by plotting the number of previously performed oesophagogastroduodenoscopies with signs of recent haemorrhage against the treatment failure rate, defined as failed haemostasis, rebleeding and necessary surgical or radiological intervention.

RESULTS

The study population included 787 cases with a median age of 66 years. Active bleeding was detected in 576 cases (73.2%). Treatment failure occurred in 225 (28.6%) cases. The learning curve showed a marked decline in treatment failure rates after nine oesophagogastroduodenoscopies had been performed by the respective endoscopists followed by a first plateau between 20 and 50 procedures. A second decline was observed after 51 emergency procedures followed by a second plateau. Endoscopists with experience of <10 emergency procedures had higher treatment failure rates compared with endoscopists with >51 emergency oesophagogastroduodenoscopies performed (p=0.039) or consultants (p=0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that a minimum number of 20 oesophagogastroduodenoscopies with signs of recent haemorrhage is necessary before endoscopists should be considered proficient to perform emergency procedures independently. Endoscopists might be considered as advanced-qualified experts in managing UGIB after a minimum of 50 haemostatic procedure performed. Implementing recommendations on minimum numbers of emergency endoscopies in education programmes of endoscopy trainees could improve their confidence and competency in managing acute UGIB.

Diagnosis and management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review and summarize the most recent literature, including evidence-based guidelines, on the evaluation and management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB).

RECENT FINDINGS

LGIB primarily presents in the elderly, often on the background of comorbidities, and constitutes a significant healthcare and economic burden worldwide. Therefore, acute LGIB requires rapid evaluation, informed decision-making, and evidence-based management decisions. LGIB management involves withholding and possibly reversing precipitating medications and concurrently addressing risk factors, with definitive diagnosis and therapy for the source of bleeding usually performed by endoscopic or radiological means. Recent advancements in LGIB diagnosis and management, including risk stratification tools and novel endoscopic therapeutic techniques have improved LGIB management and patient outcomes. In recent years, the various society guidelines on acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding have been revised and updated accordingly.

SUMMARY

By integrating the most recently published high-quality clinical studies and society guidelines, we provide clinicians with an up-to-date and comprehensive overview on acute LGIB diagnosis and management.