Hemostatic spray powder TC-325 in the primary endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcer-related bleeding: multicenter international registry

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.

Comparison of a Polysaccharide Hemostatic Powder and Conventional Therapy for Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Hemostatic powders have been clinically used in the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding. We investigated the non-inferiority of a polysaccharide hemostatic powder (PHP), compared with conventional endoscopic treatments, for peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB).

METHODS

This study was a prospective multi-center, randomized, open-label, controlled trial at 4 referral institutions. We consecutively enrolled patients who had undergone emergency endoscopy for PUB. The patients were randomly assigned to either a PHP or conventional treatment group. In the PHP group, diluted epinephrine was injected, and the powder was applied as a spray. Conventional endoscopic treatment included the use of electrical coagulation or hemoclipping after injection of diluted epinephrine.

RESULTS

Between July 2017 and May 2021, 216 patients were enrolled in this study (PHP group, 105; control group, 111). Initial hemostasis was achieved in 92 of 105 patients (87.6%) in the PHP group and 96 of 111 patients (86.5%) in the conventional treatment group. Re-bleeding did not differ between the 2 groups. In subgroup analysis, the initial hemostasis failure rate in the conventional treatment group was 13.6% for Forrest IIa cases; however, there was no initial hemostasis failure in the PHP group (P = .023). Large ulcer size (≥15 mm) and chronic kidney disease with dialysis were independent risk factors for re-bleeding at 30 days. No adverse events were associated with PHP use.

CONCLUSIONS

PHP is not inferior to conventional treatments and could be useful in initial endoscopic treatment for PUB. Further studies are needed to confirm the re-bleeding rate of PHP.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Number: NCT02717416).

Endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection therapy for refractory high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding by conventional endoscopic therapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection therapy for refractory high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding by conventional endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

154 patients with refractory high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding by conventional endoscopic therapy at the Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical Univesity and the People's Hospital of Liupanshui City from January 2018 to December 2021were enrolled in this study. Endoscopic intracellular cyanoacrylate injection was first carried out. When failure, perintravascullar injection was carried out. The data were retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

Among the 154 patients, 102 patients (66.23%) obtained successful intravascular injection and perivascular injection was performed in 52 patients (33.77%). Immediate hemostatic rate for active bleeding achieved 93.18%. Overall rebleeding rate within 30 days was 12.99% and successful hemostasis rate achieved 87.01%. Immediate hemostatic rate and successful hemostasis rate in intravascular injection patients were markedly superior over perivascular injection. Rebleeding rate in intravascular injection patients was markedly lower than that in perivascular injection patients. 14 patients complicated abdominal pain and no other complication occurred.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection therapy, especial intravascular injection, was effective and safe, with high successful hemostasis rate for refractory high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding by conventional endoscopic therapy.

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.

GIE Editorial Board Top 10: advances in GI endoscopy in 2021

The 9-member Editorial Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performed a systematic literature search of original articles published during 2021 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and 10 other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals on endoscopy-related topics. Votes from each editorial board member were tallied to identify a consensus list of the 10 most significant topic areas in GI endoscopy over the calendar year of study, with a focus on 3 criteria: significance, novelty, and global impact on clinical practice. The 10 areas identified collectively represent advances in the following endoscopic topics: colonoscopy optimization, bariatric endoscopy, endoscopic needle sampling and drainage, peroral endoscopic myotomy, endoscopic defect closure, meeting systemic challenges in endoscopic training and practice, endohepatology, FNA versus fine-needle biopsy sampling, endoscopic mucosal and submucosal procedures, and cold snare polypectomy. Each board member contributed a summary of important articles relevant to 1 to 2 of the consensus topic areas, leading to a collective summary that is presented in this document of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2021.

Efficacy analysis of hemostatic spray following endoscopic papillectomy: A multicenter comparative study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic post-papillectomy bleeding is a serious adverse event with a prevalence ranging from 2% to 45.3%. Conventional hemostatic methods, including diluted epinephrine injection before papillectomy or argon plasma coagulation after papillectomy, did not show a preventive role in reducing immediate or delayed post-papillectomy bleeding. Therefore, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a hemostatic powder spray for post-papillectomy bleeding and compare with those of conventional modalities.

METHODS

Patients who underwent endoscopic papillectomy were enrolled in five tertiary hospitals. The group was divided into hemostatic spray and conventional control groups according to the bleeding control methods. The main outcome measurements were delayed bleeding rate and any adverse events related to the procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients who received a hemostatic spray (n = 18) or conventional hemostatic methods (n = 22) after endoscopic papillectomy were included. The prevalence of delayed bleeding was not different in the two groups: 27.8% and 36.4% in hemostatic spray and conventional control groups (P = 0.564), respectively. The adverse events such as post-papillectomy pancreatitis and cholangitis were not different in the two groups. There were no procedure-related mortalities.

CONCLUSION

Hemostatic spray is technically feasible and safe for the prevention or management of post-papillectomy bleeding. Hemostatic spray can be one of the options for post-papillectomy bleeding control methods owing to its convenient use.

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.

Emerging Trends and their Impacts on Peptic Ulcer Diseases: Treatments and Techniques

Background:

Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) is prevalent in almost all parts of the world. PUD complications are creating a major source of preventable health care expenses. The major factors responsible for the incidence of PUD and its complication have changed over the past few decades after the identification of non-steroidal inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and Helicobacter pylori bacterial infection along with a marked increase in the use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) as drug therapy. The management of PUD has become more complex and challenging due to antimicrobial resistance.

Objective:

The objective of the study was to highlight current therapy and novel techniques used in the treatment of peptic ulcer diseases.

Methods:

An exhaustive literature search has been conducted across PubMed, Google, Scopus and Web of Science as an electronic database to add the crucial information from the relevant literature.

Results:

In the present review, we have discussed PUD and its pathophysiology. The recent trends in PUD and possible treatments with novel techniques have also been discussed. The type and presence of ulcers cannot be predicted accurately based on symptoms. The available treatment approaches for peptic ulcers based on their clinical presentation and etiology are anti-secretary therapy, endoscopy to reveal ulcers followed by drug therapy, and triple therapy for H pylori infection.

Conclusion:

Thus, the popular and effective methods are very beneficial in controlling PUD. The treatment based on diagnosis is the foremost requirement for ameliorating any disorder. In this article, the emerging techniques and development in the treatment and diagnosis of PUD have been reviewed.

Hemostasis Techniques for Non-variceal Upper GI Hemorrhage: Beyond Injection and Cautery

B. Nulsen D. M. Jensen.

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.

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.