Effectiveness of TC-325 (Hemospray) for treatment of diffuse or refractory upper gastrointestinal bleeding - a single center experience

Novel Use of Endoscopic Hemospray to Achieve Hemostasis in Pulmonary Hemorrhage: A Case Series

This article presents two cases of pulmonary hemorrhage successfully managed using TC-325, a novel hemostatic powder commonly known as Hemospray. Originally approved for endoscopic hemostasis in gastrointestinal bleeding, Hemospray's application in endobronchial bleeding control has not been widely reported. The cases highlight its efficacy in achieving immediate and sustained hemostasis in peripheral pulmonary bleeding, where conventional bronchoscopic therapies may be ineffective. The absence of adverse effects and the rapid cessation of bleeding underscore the potential of Hemospray as a valuable tool in the bronchoscopist's arsenal, especially in life-threatening hemoptysis scenarios. The ease of application and quick hemostatic effects position Hemospray as a pragmatic solution for cases with challenging bleeding sources. While further studies are warranted to validate its efficacy and safety in a larger cohort, these cases advocate for considering Hemospray as a potential game-changer in the comprehensive management of hemoptysis, addressing limitations or risks associated with conventional interventions.

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).

New Alternative? Self-Assembling Peptide in Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common and potentially fatal condition with all-cause mortality ranging from 3 to 10%. Endoscopic therapy traditionally involves mechanical, thermal, and injection therapies. Recently, self-assembling peptide (SAP) has become increasingly available in the United States. When applied to an affected area, this gel forms an extracellular matrix-type structure allowing for hemostasis. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of this modality in GIB.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search of major databases from inception to Nov 2022. The primary outcomes assessed were the success of hemostasis, rebleeding rates, and adverse events. The secondary outcomes assessed were successful hemostasis with monotherapy with SAP and combined therapy, which may include mechanical, injection, and thermal therapies. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

The analysis included 7 studies with 427 patients. 34% of the patients were on anticoagulation or antiplatelet agents. SAP application was technically successful in all patients. The calculated pooled rate of successful hemostasis was 93.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84.7-97.0, I2 = 73.6), and rebleeding rates were 8.9% (95% CI 5.3-14.4, I2 = 55.8). The pooled rates of hemostasis with SAP monotherapy and combined therapy were similar. No adverse events were noted related to SAP.

CONCLUSION

SAP appears to be a safe and effective treatment modality for patients with GIB. This modality provides an added advantage of improved visualization over the novel spray-based modalities. Further, prospective, or randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings.

[Gastrointestinal bleeding]

GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING

Gastrointestinal bleeding occurs frequently in clinical practice. The presence of gastrointestinal bleeding usually is suspected by typical clinical history and results of clinical examination and laboratory findings. Endoscopic treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding is associated with high success rates over 90%. Different techniques for endoscopic hemostasis are available and for most indications, a combination of two modalities is recommended. Endoscopic management of recurrent or persistent bleeding is technically more challenging and associated with increased mortality (up to 10%, especially in patients with high age and comorbidities). In this situation, endoscopic hemostasis using an over-the-scope clip has shown to be superior to standard treatment for recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Recent studies also have shown superiority for first-line over-the-scope clip treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in high-risk patients. In this review, management of gastrointestinal bleeding is summarized based on current guidelines and current literature.

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.

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 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.

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.

The Efficacy and Safety of Hemospray for the Management of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

GOALS/BACKGROUND

Hemospray is a new hemostatic powder recently approved for endoscopic hemostasis in gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Data are limited in terms of its clinical outcomes, and its role in the treatment algorithm of GI bleeds. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the clinical performance of Hemospray in the management of GI bleeding.

STUDY

We searched multiple databases from inception through March 2019 to identify studies that reported on the clinical outcomes of Hemospray in GI bleeding. The primary outcome was pooled rates of clinical success after the application of Hemospray in GI bleeding. The secondary outcomes were pooled rebleeding rates and adverse events after use of Hemospray.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies, 814 patients, of which 212 patients were treated with Hemospray as monotherapy, and 602 patients were treated with Hemospray with conventional hemostatic techniques. Overall pooled clinical success after the application of Hemospray was 92% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 87%-96%; I2=70.4%]. Overall pooled early rebleeding rates after application of Hemospray was 20% (95% CI, 16%-26%; I2=54%). Overall pooled delayed rebleeding rates after the application of Hemospray was 23% (95% CI, 16%-31%; I2=34.9%). There was no statistical difference in clinical success (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.08; P=0.34) and early rebleeding (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75-1.07; P=0.214) in studies that compared the use of Hemospray as monotherapy versus combination therapy with conventional therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemospray is highly effective in achieving immediate hemostasis in gastrointestinal bleeding. However, due to significantly high rebleeding rates, Hemospray is not suited for definitive long-term therapy.

Efficacy of a novel hemostatic adhesive powder in patients with upper gastrointestinal tumor bleeding

Background

Gastrointestinal tumor bleeding remains a clinical challenge because it is difficult to treat with conventional endoscopic hemostatic options. Recently, an endoscopic hemostatic powder (UI-EWD) was developed and reported to provide effective control of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of current study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of this novel hemostatic powder in tumor bleeding.

Methods

A total of 41 consecutive patients with upper gastrointestinal tumor bleeding were included. UI-EWD was applied in all patients as an auxiliary hemostatic method as a salvage therapy or monotherapy during endoscopic treatment. Hemostasis success rates, adverse event related to UI-EWD, and rates of re-bleeding were evaluated.

Results

In all cases, UI-EWD application was successful at tumor bleeding sites. Immediate hemostasis occurred in 40/41 (97.5%) patients, and re-bleeding within 28 days occurred in 10 of 40 (22.5%) patients that achieved initial hemostasis. The success rate of immediate hemostasis for UI-EWD monotherapy was 100% (23/23). The re-bleeding rate at 28 days after UI-EWD monotherapy was 26.1% (6/23). No adverse events associated with UI-EWD application were encountered.

Conclusions

The success rate of UI-EWD for immediate hemostasis in cases of GI tumor bleeding was excellent and UI-EWD produced promising results with respect to the prevention of re-bleeding. Based on these results, we suggest that UI-EWD be considered an effective salvage therapy or even monotherapy for GI tumor bleeding.

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

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a leading cause of morbidity and is associated with a 2 % - 17 % mortality rate in the UK and USA. Bleeding peptic ulcers account for 50 % of UGIB cases. Endoscopic intervention in a timely manner can improve outcomes. Hemostatic spray is an endoscopic hemostatic powder for GI bleeding. This multicenter registry was created to collect data prospectively on the immediate endoscopic hemostasis of GI bleeding in patients with peptic ulcer disease when hemostatic spray is applied as endoscopic monotherapy, dual therapy, or rescue therapy.

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively (January 2016 - March 2019) from 14 centers in the UK, France, Germany, and the USA. The application of hemostatic spray was decided upon at the endoscopist's discretion.

RESULTS

202 patients with UGIB secondary to peptic ulcers were recruited. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 178/202 patients (88 %), 26/154 (17 %) experienced rebleeding, 21/175 (12 %) died within 7 days, and 38/175 (22 %) died within 30 days (all-cause mortality). Combination therapy of hemostatic spray with other endoscopic modalities had an associated lower 30-day mortality (16 %, P < 0.05) compared with monotherapy or rescue therapy. There were high immediate hemostasis rates across all peptic ulcer disease Forrest classifications.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest case series of outcomes of peptic ulcer bleeding treated with hemostatic spray, with high immediate hemostasis rates for bleeding peptic ulcers.

Treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in 2020: New techniques and outcomes

The clinical outcome of upper gastrointestinal bleeding has improved due to advances in endoscopic therapy and standardized peri-endoscopy care. Apart from validating clinical scores, artificial intelligence-assisted machine learning models may play an important role in risk stratification. While standard endoscopic treatments remain irreplaceable, novel endoscopic modalities have changed the landscape of management. Over-the-scope clips have high success rates as rescue or even first-line treatments in difficult-to-treat cases. Hemostatic powder is safe and easy to use, which can be useful as temporary control with its high immediate hemostatic ability. After endoscopic hemostasis, Doppler endoscopic probe can offer an objective measure to guide the treatment endpoint. In refractory bleeding, angiographic embolization should be considered before salvage surgery. In variceal hemorrhage, banding ligation and glue injection are first-line treatment options. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapy is gaining popularity due to its capability of precise localization for treatment targets. A self-expandable metal stent may be considered as an alternative option to balloon tamponade in refractory bleeding. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting should be reserved as salvage therapy. In this article, we aim to provide an evidence-based comprehensive review of the major advancements in endoscopic hemostatic techniques and clinical outcomes.

Efficacy of a novel self-assembling peptide hemostatic gel as rescue therapy for refractory acute gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding (AGIB) results in significant morbidity and mortality. Topical hemostatic products have been developed for endoscopic use to help in the management of difficult bleeding. Our aim was to demonstrate the ease of use, safety, and efficacy of PuraStat, a novel hemostat, to control AGIB.

METHODS

We describe 77 patients (41 men) who were treated for acute upper and lower AGIB in a 2-year period. In 50 patients, bleeding occurred as a complication of a previous endoscopic procedure, predominantly endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); however, in the other 27 patients, it derived from peptic ulcers, angiodysplasia, cancers, and surgical anastomoses. Bleeding was spurting in 13 of the 77 patients and oozing in 64. PuraStat was used after the failure of at least two conventional hemostatic methods.

RESULTS

A mean of 2.6 conventional hemostatic methods had been attempted prior to the application of PuraStat. PuraStat achieved successful hemostasis in 90.9 % of patients. In 41 patients, once hemostasis was obtained with PuraStat, endoscopists further stabilized hemostasis by using at least one additional method. Recurrence of bleeding was observed in eight patients (10.4 %). In 16 patients with intraprocedural bleeding, it was possible to complete the procedures (14 EMR, 2 ERCP) after PuraStat hemostasis. No adverse events related to PuraStat were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

PuraStat is feasible, safe, and effective in controlling different types of gastrointestinal hemorrhage after failure of conventional hemostatic methods. Its application also does not hinder continuing endotherapy.

Outcomes of Hemospray therapy in the treatment of intraprocedural upper gastrointestinal bleeding post-endoscopic therapy

INTRODUCTION

With increasing advances in minimally invasive endoscopic therapies and endoscopic resection techniques for luminal disease, there is an increased risk of post-procedure bleeding. This can contribute to significant burden on patient's quality of life and health resources when reintervention is required. Hemospray (Cook Medical, North Carolina, USA) is a novel haemostatic powder licensed for gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of this single-arm, prospective, non-randomised multicentre international study is to look at outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeds following elective endoscopic therapy treated with Hemospray to achieve haemostasis.

METHODS

Data was prospectively collected on the use of Hemospray from 16 centres (January 2016-November 2019). Hemospray was used during the presence of progressive intraprocedural bleeding post-endoscopic therapy as a monotherapy, dual therapy with standard haemostatic techniques or rescue therapy once standard methods had failed. Haemostasis was defined as the cessation of bleeding within 5 min of the application of Hemospray. Re-bleeding was defined as a sustained drop in haemoglobin (>2 g/l), haematemesis or melaena with haemodynamic instability after the index endoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients were analysed with bleeding post-endoscopic therapy. The median Blatchford score at baseline was five (interquartile range 0-9). The median Rockall score was six (interquartile range 5-7). Immediate haemostasis following the application of Hemospray was achieved in 73/73 (100%) of patients. Two out of 57 (4%) had a re-bleed post-Hemospray, one was following oesophageal endoscopic mucosal resection and the other post-duodenal endoscopic mucosal resection. Both patients had a repeat endoscopy and therapy within 24 h. Re-bleeding data was missing for 16 patients, and mortality data was missing for 14 patients. There were no adverse events recorded in association with the use of Hemospray.

CONCLUSION

Hemospray is safe and effective in achieving immediate haemostasis following uncontrolled and progressive intraprocedural blood loss post-endoscopic therapy, with a low re-bleed rate.

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.

Outcomes from an international multicenter registry of patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding undergoing endoscopic treatment with Hemospray

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding carries poor outcomes unless prompt endoscopic hemostasis is achieved. Mortality in these patients remains significant. Hemospray is a novel intervention that creates a mechanical barrier over bleeding sites. We report the largest dataset of patient outcomes after treatment with Hemospray from an international multicenter registry.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective data (Jan 2016-May 2018) from 12 centers across Europe were collected. Immediate hemostasis was defined as endoscopic cessation of bleeding within 5 min after application of Hemospray. Rebleeding was defined as subsequent drop in hemoglobin, hematemesis, persistent melena with hemodynamic compromise post-therapy.

RESULTS

Three hundred and fourteen cases were recruited worldwide (231 males, 83 females). Median pretreatment Blatchford score was 11 (IQR: 8-14) and median complete Rockall score (RS) was 7 (IQR: 6-8) for all patients. Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) was the most common pathology (167/314 = 53%) and Forrest Ib the most common bleed type in PUD (100/167 = 60%). 281 patients (89.5%) achieved immediate hemostasis after successful endoscopic therapy with Hemospray. Rebleeding occurred in 29 (10.3%) of the 281 patients who achieved immediate hemostasis. Seven-day and 30-day all-cause mortality were 11.5% (36/314) and 20.1% (63/314), respectively (lower than the predicted rates as per the RS). Similar hemostasis rates were noted in the Hemospray monotherapy (92.4%), combination therapy (88.7%) and rescue therapy (85.5%) groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These data show high rates of immediate hemostasis overall and in all subgroups. Rebleeding and mortality rates were in keeping/lower than predicted rates.

Use of hemostatic powder in treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims TC-325 is a novel mineral hemostatic powder that creates a mechanical barrier by absorbing blood components and promoting clotting. Recently approved for use in humans, it has shown promise for treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). However, because there have been no large studies of TC-325, its true efficacy and safety profile remain unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of TC-325 in treating UGIB, based on rates of initial hemostasis, rebleeding, and adverse events (AEs).

Methods We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Latin-American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases, as well as the gray literature, to identify articles describing use of TC-325 up to October 2018. Primary outcomes were initial hemostasis and rebleeding. AEs were described as a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with international scores.

Results We identified 2077 records after removal of duplicates. We included 50 studies, involving a collective total of 1445 patients, in the quantitative synthesis. Primary hemostasis and rebleeding rates were 90.7 % and 26.1 %, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed similar results. Only eight AEs were reported.

Conclusions TC-325 appears to be a safe, effective treatment for UGIB. The overall rate of initial hemostasis after TC-325 use is high, regardless of etiology of bleeding or whether TC-325 is used as a primary or rescue therapy. Although it is also associated with high rebleeding rates, rates of AEs and equipment failure after TC-325 use are extremely low.

Novel hemostatic adhesive powder for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Background and study aims  A new hemostatic adhesive powder (UI-EWD) was developed to reduce high rebleeding rates and technical challenges associated with application of currently available hemostatic powders. The aim of the current study was to assess performance of UI-EWD for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). Patients and methods  A total of 56 consecutive patients that received UI-EWD monotherapy for endoscopic hemostasis due to NVUGIB were retrospectively reviewed. Main study outcomes were success rates with immediate hemostasis and rebleeding within 30 days. Outcomes were analyzed by reviewing patient medical records. Results  Etiologies of bleeding were: post-endoscopic therapy bleeding in 46 (82.1 %), peptic ulcer in 8 (14.3 %), tumor in 1 (1.8 %), and other in 1 (1.8 %). UI-EWD was successfully applied at bleeding site in all cases. The success rate of immediate hemostasis was 96.4 % (54/56), and the 30-day rebleeding rate among patients that achieved immediate hemostasis was 3.7 % (2/54). No adverse event related to use of UI-EWD occurred. Conclusion  UI-EWD was found to have a high immediate hemostasis success rate in NVUGIB when used as monotherapy and showed promising results in terms of preventing rebleeding.

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.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

TC-325 (Hemospray, Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC) is an inorganic hemostatic powder recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness, safety, and predictors of TC-325 failure in a large real-life cohort.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study conducted at 21 Spanish centers. All patients treated with TC-325 until September 2018 were included. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as failed intraprocedural hemostasis or recurrent bleeding within the first 30 postprocedural days. Secondary outcomes included safety and survival. Risk and predictors of failure were assessed via competing-risk models.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 261 patients, of whom 219 (83.9%) presented with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). The most common causes were peptic ulcer (28%), malignancy (18.4%), and therapeutic endoscopy-related GIB (17.6%). TC-325 was used as rescue therapy in 191 (73.2%) patients. The rate of intraprocedural hemostasis was 93.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90%-96%). Risks of TC-325 failure at postprocedural days 3, 7, and 30 were 21.1%, 24.6%, and 27.4%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, spurting bleeding (P = .004), use of vasoactive drugs (P = .02), and hypotension (P = .008) were independent predictors of failure. Overall 30-day survival was 81.9% (95% CI, 76%-86%) and intraprocedural hemostasis was associated with a better prognosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.29; P = .006). Two severe adverse events were noted.

CONCLUSION

TC-325 was safe and effective for intraprocedural hemostasis in more than 90% of patients, regardless of the cause or site of bleeding and its use as rescue therapy. In this high-risk cohort treated with TC-325, the 30-day failure rate exceeded 25% and was highest with spurting bleeding or hemodynamic instability.

New Techniques to Control Gastrointestinal Bleeding

For decades, the mainstay of endoscopic hemostasis for a wide variety of gastrointestinal bleeding etiologies was limited to a few tools and techniques, including epinephrine injection, thermal probes, and through-the-scope hemostatic clips. Several novel approaches have recently emerged to control acute gastrointestinal hemorrhage. The concepts behind these approaches are diverse, ranging from upgrading current techniques (eg, over-the-scope clips and endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatment of gastric varices) to developing new technologies (eg, hemostatic powders) and repurposing current tools (eg, Doppler endoscopic probe). This article presents an evidence-based review of the major advancements in endoscopic hemostasis techniques.

Comparison of Hemospray® and Endoclot™ for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common indication for endoscopy. For refractory cases, hemostatic powders (HP) represent “touch-free” agents.

AIM

To analyze short term (ST-within 72 h-) and long-term (LT-within 30 d-) success for achieving hemostasis with HP and to directly compare the two agents Hemospray (HS) and Endoclot (EC).

METHODS

HP was applied in 154 consecutive patients (mean age 67 years) with GI bleeding. Patients were followed up for 1 mo (mean follow-up: 3.2 mo).

RESULTS

Majority of applications were in upper GI tract (89%) with following bleeding sources: peptic ulcer disease (35%), esophageal varices (7%), tumor bleeding (11.7%), reflux esophagitis (8.7%), diffuse bleeding and erosions (15.3%). Overall ST success was achieved in 125 patients (81%) and LT success in 81 patients (67%). Re-bleeding occurred in 27% of all patients. In 72 patients (47%), HP was applied as a salvage hemostatic therapy, here ST and LT success were 81% and 64%, with re-bleeding in 32%. As a primary hemostatic therapy, ST and LT success were 82% and 69%, with re-bleeding occurring in 22%. HS was more frequently applied for upper GI bleeding (P = 0.04)

CONCLUSION

Both HP allow for effective hemostasis with no differences in ST, LT success and re-bleeding.

Randomized controlled trial of hemostatic powder versus endoscopic clipping for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite advances in pharmacological and endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB), mortality is still relevant. TC-325 (Hemospray-Cook Medical) is a mineral powder with adsorptive properties, designed for endoscopic hemostasis. There are still no comparative trials studying this new hemostatic modality. The objective of this research was to compare the use of TC-325 (associated with epinephrine injection) with the combined technique of endoscopic clipping and epinephrine injection for the treatment of patients with NVUGIB.

METHODS

We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial with patients that presented NVUGIB with an actively bleeding lesion at the endoscopic evaluation. Patients were randomized either to the Hemospray or Hemoclip group. The randomization list was generated by a computer program and remained unknown throughout the entire trial. All patients underwent second-look endoscopy.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients were enrolled. Peptic ulcer was the most frequent etiology. Primary hemostasis was achieved in all Hemospray cases and in 90% of Hemoclip group (p = 0.487). Five patients in Hemospray group underwent an additional hemostatic procedure during second-look endoscopy, while no patient in the Hemoclip group needed it (p = 0.04). Rebleeding, emergency surgery and mortality rates were similar in both groups. No toxicity, allergy events, or gastrointestinal obstruction signs were observed in Hemospray group.

CONCLUSIONS

TC-325 presents similar hemostatic results when compared with conventional dual therapy for patients with NVUGIB. Hemospray's excellent primary hemostasis rate certifies it as a valuable tool in arduous situations of severe bleeding or difficult location site.