TC-325 hemostatic powder in the management of upper gastrointestinal malignant bleeding: a randomized controlled 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.

Ideal strategy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Over 300 000 hospital admissions in the United States each year are due to patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (UGIB). Common etiologies of nonvariceal UGIB include peptic ulcers, mucosal erosions of the esophagus, stomach or duodenum, Mallory-Weiss tears, Dieulafoy lesions, upper GI tract malignancy, or other etiology.

RECENT FINDINGS

Peptic ulcers classified as Forrest Ia, Ib, or IIa require endoscopic hemostasis, while IIb ulcers may be considered for endoscopic clot removal with endoscopic treatment of any underlying major stigmata. Endoscopic hemostasis for ulcers classified as Forrest IIc or III is not advised due to the low risk of recurrent bleeding. Endoscopic hemostasis in ulcer bleeding can be achieved using injection, thermal, and/or mechanical modalities.

SUMMARY

This review focuses on the currently recommended endoscopic therapies of patients presenting with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

Review article: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding - review of current evidence and implications for management

BACKGROUND

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common emergency requiring hospital-based care. Advances in care across pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases have led to improvements in clinical outcomes.

AIMS

To provide a detailed, evidence-based update on major aspects of care across pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases.

METHODS

We performed a structured bibliographic database search for each topic. If a recent high-quality meta-analysis was not available, we performed a meta-analysis with random effects methods and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Pre-endoscopic management of UGIB includes risk stratification, a restrictive red blood cell transfusion policy unless the patient has cardiovascular disease, and pharmacologic therapy with erythromycin and a proton pump inhibitor. Patients with cirrhosis should be treated with prophylactic antibiotics and vasoactive medications. Tranexamic acid should not be used. Endoscopic management of UGIB depends on the aetiology. For peptic ulcer disease (PUD) with high-risk stigmata, endoscopic therapy, including over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) and TC-325 powder spray, should be performed. For variceal bleeding, treatment should be customised by severity and anatomic location. Post-endoscopic management includes early enteral feeding for all UGIB patients. For high-risk PUD, PPI should be continued for 72 h, and rebleeding should initially be evaluated with a repeat endoscopy. For variceal bleeding, high-risk patients or those with further bleeding, a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt can be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of acute UGIB should include treatment plans for pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases of care, and customise treatment decisions based on aetiology and severity of bleeding.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Current guidelines vary as to their recommendations addressing the role of hemostatic powders when managing patients with malignant gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding because these are based on very-low- to low-quality evidence, in large part due to a paucity of randomized trial data.

METHODS

This was a patient- and outcome assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Patients presenting with active bleeding from an upper or lower GI lesion suspected to be malignant at index endoscopy between June 2019 and January 2022 were randomly allocated to receive either TC-325 alone or standard endoscopic treatment (SET). The primary outcome was 30-day rebleeding, and secondary objectives included immediate hemostasis and other clinically relevant endpoints.

RESULTS

Overall, 106 patients made up the study population (55 TC-325 and 51 SET, after 1 exclusion in the TC-325 group and 5 in the SET group). Baseline characteristics and endoscopic findings did not differ between the groups. Thirty-day rebleeding was significantly lower in the TC-325 (2.1% TC-325 vs 21.3% SET; odds ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.80; P = .003). Immediate hemostasis rates were 100% in the TC-325 group vs 68.6% in the SET group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.93-2.29; P < .001). Other secondary outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups. Independent predictors of 6-month survival included the Charlson comorbidity index (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.32; P = .007) and receiving an additional nonendoscopic hemostatic or oncologic treatment during 30 days after the index endoscopy (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.43; P < .001) after adjustment for functional status, Glasgow-Blatchford score, and an upper GI source of bleeding.

CONCLUSION

The TC-325 hemostatic powder results in greater immediate hemostasis rates followed by lower 30-day rebleeding rates when compared to contemporary SET. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03855904).

Hemostatic spray (TC-325) vs. standard endoscopic therapy for non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and study aims  Hemospray (TC-325) is a mineral powder with adsorptive properties designed for use in various gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) scenarios. We conducted a systematic review & meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TC-325 to standard endoscopic therapy (SET) for non-variceal GIB (NVGIB).

Methods  Multiple databases were searched through October 2022. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to determine pooled relative risk (RR) and proportions with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for primary hemostasis, hemostasis failure, 30-day rebleeding, length of stay (LOS), and need for rescue interventions. Heterogeneity was assessed using I ² %.

Results  Five RCTs with 362 patients (TC-325 178, SET 184) – 123 females and 239 males with a mean age 65 ± 16 years). The most common etiologies were peptic ulcer disease (48 %), malignancies (35 %), and others (17 %). Bleeding was characterized as Forrest IA (7 %), IB (73 %), IIA (3 %), and IIB (1 %). SET included epinephrine injection, electrocautery, hemoclips, or a combination. No statistical difference in primary hemostasis between TC-325 compared to SET, RR 1.09 (CI 0.95–1.25; I ² 43), P =  0.2, including patients with oozing/spurting hemorrhage, RR 1.13 (CI 0.98–1.3; I ² 35), P =  0.08. Failure to achieve hemostasis was higher in SET compared to TC-325, RR 0.30 (CI 0.12–0.77, I ² 0), P =  0.01, including patients with oozing/spurting hemorrhage, RR 0.24 (CI 0.09 – 0.63, I ² 0), P =  0.004. We found no difference between the two interventions in terms of rebleeding, RR 1.13 (CI 0.62–2.07, I ² 26), P =  0.8 and LOS, standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.27 (CI, –0.20–0.74; I ² 62), P =  0.3. Finally, pooled rate of rescue interventions (angiography) was statistically higher in SET compared to TC-325, RR 0.68 (CI 0.5–0.94; I ² 0), P =  0.02.

Conclusions  Our analysis shows that for acute NV GIB, including oozing/spurting hemorrhage, TC-325 does not result in higher rates of primary hemostasis compared to SET. However, lower rates of failures were seen with TC-325 than SET. In addition, there was no difference in the two modalities when comparing rates of rebleeding and LOS.

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.