Using Hemospray Improves the Cost-effectiveness Ratio in the Management of Upper Gastrointestinal Nonvariceal Bleeding

Review of Evidence Supporting the Arista™ Absorbable Powder Hemostat

Background

Uncontrolled and diffuse bleeding is a dreaded event during open and laparoscopic surgery that may lead to postoperative complications, obstruction of the surgical field that reduces visualization, and prolonged operating times. Powder hemostats can be used to control bleeding and are easy to use, have a safe profile, and can achieve broad coverage area at a low cost.

Methods

A strategic literature search of peer-reviewed, English language studies was conducted to capture evidence on the clinical efficacy and safety of a Microporous Polysaccharide Hemosphere (MPH) based Hemostat (Arista™ Absorbable Hemostat (Arista™ AH)).

Results

Six preclinical studies were found which supported the use of MPH in various animal models of laparoscopic and open surgery, all of which demonstrated its safety and efficacy. Five single-arm and 11 comparative clinical studies similarly supported the efficacy and safety of MPH in various surgery types, including cardiac, renal, and dermatologic surgery.

Conclusion

Published evidence supports the safe and effective use of MPH across a variety of surgical settings.

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.

Gastrointestinal Emergencies and the Role of Endoscopy

Many gastrointestinal (GI) disorders present to the emergency room with acute clinical presentations, some even life threatening. Common emergencies encountered that require urgent endoscopic interventions include GI hemorrhage (variceal and nonvariceal), foreign body ingestion, obstructive jaundice, postprocedure-related complications such as postpolypectomy bleed or perforation, etc. A major advantage of emergency endoscopy is that it is cost effective and, on many occasions, can be life-saving. The present review will highlight a practical approach on various endoscopic modalities and their use in the GI emergencies.

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.

Use of stents in patients undergoing chemotherapy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer-causing biliary obstruction while awaiting surgery: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Background and study aims  Biliary stenting is indicated to relieve obstruction from borderline resectable pancreatic cancer while patients receive preoperative neoadjuvant therapy. We compared the cost-effectiveness of plastic versus metal biliary stenting in this setting. Methods  A decision tree analysis compares two competing types of biliary stents (initially metal vs. initially plastic) to treat malignant distal biliary obstruction while receiving neoadjuvant therapy with different scenarios including possible complications as bridge till the patient undergoes curative surgical attempt. Using published information, effectiveness was chosen as the probability of successfully reaching a state of being ready for surgery once chemotherapy was completed. Costs (2018 US$) were based on national data. A third-party payer perspective was adopted, and sensitivity analyses were performed over a time-horizon of one year. Results  Initially inserting a metal versus a plastic biliary stent was more efficacious with a higher probability of reaching the readiness for surgery endpoint (96 % vs. 85 %), on average 18 days earlier while also being less expensive (US$ 9,304 vs. US$ 11,538). Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of these results across varying probability assumptions of plausible ranges and remained a dominant strategy even when lowering the willingness-to-pay threshold to US$ 1,000. Conclusions  Initial metal stenting to relieve malignant biliary obstruction from borderline resectable pancreatic cancer in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgery is a dominant intervention in economic terms, when compared to initially inserting a plastic biliary stent as it results in a greater proportion of patients being fit for surgery earlier and at a lower cost.

Early cholangioscopy-assisted electrohydraulic lithotripsy in difficult biliary stones is cost-effective

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Single-operator cholangioscopy-assisted electrohydraulic lithotripsy (SOC-EHL) is effective and safe in difficult choledocholithiasis. The optimal timing of SOC-EHL use, however, in refractory stones has not been elucidated. The following aims to determine the most cost-effective timing of SOC-EHL introduction in the management of choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model was developed assessing three strategies with a progressively delayed introduction of SOC-EHL. Probability estimates of patient pathways were obtained from a systematic review. The unit of effectiveness is complete ductal clearance without need for surgery. Cost is expressed in 2018 US dollars and stem from outpatient US databases.

RESULTS

The three strategies achieved comparable ductal clearance rates ranging from 97.3% to 99.7%. The least expensive strategy is to perform SOC-EHL during the first endoscopic retrograde cholangiography pancreatography (ERCP) (SOC-1: 18,506$). The strategy of postponing the use of SOC-EHL to the third ERCP (SOC-3) is more expensive (US$18,895) but is 2% more effective. (0.9967). SOC-EHL during the second ERCP in the model (SOC-2) is the least cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses show altered conclusions according to the cost of SOC-EHL, effectiveness of conventional ERCP, and altered willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds with early SOC-1 being the most optimal approach below a WTP cut-off of US$20,295.

CONCLUSIONS

Early utilization of SOC-EHL (SOC-1) in difficult choledocholithiasis may be the least costly strategy with an effectiveness approximating those achieved with a delayed approach where one or more conventional ERCP(s) are reattempted prior to SOC-EHL introduction.

New Trends and Advances in Non-Variceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding-Series II

The gastrointestinal tract is a long tubular structure wherein any point in the mucosa along its entire length could be the source of a hemorrhage. Upper (esophagel and gastroduodenal) and lower (jejunum, ileum, and colon) gastrointestinal bleeding are common. Gastroduodenal and colonic bleeding are more frequent than bleeding from the small bowel, but nowadays the entire gastrointestinal tract can be explored endoscopically and bleeding lesions can be locally treated successfully to stop or prevent further bleeding. The extensive use of antiplatelet and anticoagulants drugs in cardiovascular patients is, at least in part, the cause of the increasing number of patients suffering from gastrointestinal bleeding. Patients with these conditions are usually older and more fragile because of their comorbidities. The correct management of antithrombotic drugs in cases of gastrointestinal bleeding is essential for a successful outcome for patients. The influence of the microbiome in the pathogenesis of small bowel bleeding is an example of the new data that are emerging as potential therapeutic target for bleeding prevention. This text summarizes the latest research and advances in all forms of acute gastrointestinal bleeding (i.e., upper, small bowel and lower). Diagnosis is approached, and medical, endoscopic or antithrombotic management are discussed in the text in an accessible and comprehensible way.

Endoscopic application of mussel-inspired phenolic chitosan as a hemostatic agent for gastrointestinal bleeding: A preclinical study in a heparinized pig model

Marine mussels secrete adhesive proteins to attach to solid surfaces. These proteins contain phenolic and basic amino acids exhibiting wet adhesion properties. This study used a mussel-inspired hemostatic polymer, chitosan-catechol, to treat gastrointestinal bleeding caused by endoscopic mucosal resection in a heparinized porcine model. We aimed to evaluate the hemostatic efficacy and short-term safety of this wet adhesive chitosan-catechol. We used 15 heparinized pigs. Four iatrogenic bleeding ulcers classified as Forrest Ib were created in each pig using an endoscopic mucosal resection method. One ulcer in each pig was untreated as a negative control (no-treatment group). The other three ulcers were treated with gauze (gauze group), argon plasma coagulation (APC group), and chitosan-catechol hemostatic agent (CHI-C group) each. The pigs were sacrificed on Days 1, 5, and 10, and histological examination was performed (n = 5 per day). Rapid hemostasis observed at 2 min after bleeding was 93.3% (14/15) in the CHI-C group, 6.7% (1/15) in the no-treatment group, 13.3% (2/15) in the gauze group, and 86.7% (13/15) in the APC group. No re-bleeding was observed in the CHI-C group during the entire study period. However, a few re-bleeding cases were observed on Day 1 in the no-treatment, gauze, and APC groups and on Day 5 in the gauze and APC groups. On histological analysis, the CHI-C group showed the best tissue healing among the four test groups. Considering the results, chitosan-catechol is an effective hemostatic material with reduced re-bleeding and improved healing.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Upper Gastrointestinal and Ulcer Bleeding

We performed systematic reviews addressing predefined clinical questions to develop recommendations with the GRADE approach regarding management of patients with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We suggest risk assessment in the emergency department to identify very-low-risk patients (e.g., Glasgow-Blatchford score = 0-1) who may be discharged with outpatient follow-up. For patients hospitalized with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, we suggest red blood cell transfusion at a threshold of 7 g/dL. Erythromycin infusion is suggested before endoscopy, and endoscopy is suggested within 24 hours after presentation. Endoscopic therapy is recommended for ulcers with active spurting or oozing and for nonbleeding visible vessels. Endoscopic therapy with bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, and absolute ethanol injection is recommended, and low- to very-low-quality evidence also supports clips, argon plasma coagulation, and soft monopolar electrocoagulation; hemostatic powder spray TC-325 is suggested for actively bleeding ulcers and over-the-scope clips for recurrent ulcer bleeding after previous successful hemostasis. After endoscopic hemostasis, high-dose proton pump inhibitor therapy is recommended continuously or intermittently for 3 days, followed by twice-daily oral proton pump inhibitor for the first 2 weeks of therapy after endoscopy. Repeat endoscopy is suggested for recurrent bleeding, and if endoscopic therapy fails, transcatheter embolization is suggested.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2021

1: ESGE recommends in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Patients with GBS ≤ 1 are at very low risk of rebleeding, mortality within 30 days, or needing hospital-based intervention and can be safely managed as outpatients with outpatient endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in patients with acute UGIH who are taking low-dose aspirin as monotherapy for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis, aspirin should not be interrupted. If for any reason it is interrupted, aspirin should be re-started as soon as possible, preferably within 3-5 days.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that following hemodynamic resuscitation, early (≤ 24 hours) upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be performed. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4: ESGE does not recommend urgent (≤ 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy since as compared to early endoscopy, patient outcomes are not improved. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends for patients with actively bleeding ulcers (FIa, FIb), combination therapy using epinephrine injection plus a second hemostasis modality (contact thermal or mechanical therapy). Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends for patients with an ulcer with a nonbleeding visible vessel (FIIa), contact or noncontact thermal therapy, mechanical therapy, or injection of a sclerosing agent, each as monotherapy or in combination with epinephrine injection. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE suggests that in patients with persistent bleeding refractory to standard hemostasis modalities, the use of a topical hemostatic spray/powder or cap-mounted clip should be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that for patients with clinical evidence of recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage, use of a cap-mounted clip should be considered. In the case of failure of this second attempt at endoscopic hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) should be considered. Surgery is indicated when TAE is not locally available or after failed TAE. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with FIIb ulcer stigmata (adherent clot) not treated endoscopically. (A): PPI therapy should be administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (e. g., 80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy. (B): High dose PPI therapies given as intravenous bolus dosing (twice-daily) or in oral formulation (twice-daily) can be considered as alternative regimens.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10: ESGE recommends that in patients who require ongoing anticoagulation therapy following acute NVUGIH (e. g., peptic ulcer hemorrhage), anticoagulation should be resumed as soon as the bleeding has been controlled, preferably within or soon after 7 days of the bleeding event, based on thromboembolic risk. The rapid onset of action of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS), as compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), must be considered in this context.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Communique: After-Hours Endoscopy Cart

Background

Endoscopic procedures performed after-hours often require therapeutic interventions that are technically demanding for the endoscopist. The aim of this position paper is to provide guidance on the minimum standard of equipment that should be available on a mobile endoscopy cart for provision of a safe and effective after-hours emergency endoscopy service. The guidance is based on consensus among academic and community gastroenterologists in Canada.

Methods

A modified Delphi process was used to establish consensus among 9 participants. A list of statements was prepared by an expert panel of endoscopists. The statements were divided into three broad sections for what should be on an after-hours endoscopy cart including medications, nonendoscopic tools and therapeutic/diagnostic equipment. Consensus for being on the endoscopy cart was achieved when 75% or more of voting members indicated ‘agree’.

Results

For nonendoscopic tools, there was agreement for having sterile saline, sterile water, endoscope lubricant, various syringes, bite blocks (paediatric and adult size), a water pump with foot peddle, formalin jars for biopsy specimens, digital photo and printing capability and an overtube. For medications, there was agreement for having hyoscine butylbromide and epinephrine on the cart. For therapeutic/diagnostic tools, there was agreement for having biopsy forceps (standard and jumbo), polypectomy snares, sclerotherapy needles and agent (for a variceal bleed), band ligation kit, multipolar electrocautery probes, heater probe catheter, endoscopic clips, hemostatic powder and retrieval devices.

Interpretation

This position paper provides guidance on the minimum standard of items that should be on an after-hours endoscopy cart. Standardization of equipment may help improve safety and quality of after-hours endoscopic procedures.

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.

TC-325 hemostatic powder versus current standard of care in managing malignant GI bleeding: a pilot randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

TC-325 (Hemospray; Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC, USA), an endoscopic hemostatic powder, exhibits possible benefits in patients with malignant GI bleeding. Our aim is to assess feasibility and determine estimates of efficacy of TC-325 compared with standard of care (SOC) in terms of initial hemostasis and recurrent bleeding rates in comparable groups of patients with malignant GI bleeding.

METHODS

Adult patients presenting with acute malignant upper or lower GI bleeding were randomized to TC-325 or SOC. Measured outcomes included feasibility of recruitment and randomization in the urgent care setting, immediate hemostasis, recurrent bleeding, need for additional treatment modalities, and mortality.

RESULTS

A preplanned 20 patients (upper GI source in 85%) were randomized 1:1 to TC-325 or SOC (25% women, age 67.2 ± 15.9 years, oozing in 95%) over 20 months. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 90% of patients treated initially with TC-325 versus 40% in the SOC group (P = .057). Overall, 83.3% crossed over to TC-325, with hemostasis then achieved at index endoscopy in 80%. Overall, hemostasis at index endoscopy (before or after crossover) was obtained in 87.7% of patients treated with TC-325. Recurrent bleeding over the next 180 days was 20% in the TC-325 group compared with 60% in the SOC group (P = .170).

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot trial demonstrates the feasibility of TC-325 in malignant GI bleeding and provides results to help inform a larger randomized trial. Although not powered for such, results suggest that use of TC-325 is a very promising modality in malignant GI bleeding in achieving immediate hemostasis and may even result in decreased subsequent recurrent bleeding. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02135627.).

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.

Management of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Guideline Recommendations From the International Consensus Group

DESCRIPTION

This update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations.

METHODS

An international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Preendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.

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.

Use of Doppler Probe in Nonvariceal Upper-Gastrointestinal Bleeding Is Less Costly and More Effective Than Standard of Care

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common emergency and rebleeding is associated with an increased risk of death. Proper assessment of high-risk lesions and appropriate endoscopic hemostasis are required for the best outcomes. The endoscopic Doppler probe examination (DPE) allows for a more complete assessment of the stigmata of hemorrhage, providing better evaluation of the need for endoscopic hemostasis and determination of its completeness. We aimed to evaluate whether use of the DPE provides an additional advantage in cost and effectiveness compared with traditional endoscopic visual assessment (TEA) of high-risk stigmata in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

We drew a decision tree representing the choice between DPE and TEA approaches for patients undergoing an index endoscopy for active nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Clinical probabilities were retrieved from randomized controlled trial data. Costs were expressed in 2017 US dollars. A third-party payer perspective was adopted. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The adopted time horizon was 30 days after the index endoscopy.

RESULTS

We found that DPE is a dominant strategy over the TEA, in that DPE is more efficacious (92.6% of patients avoiding rebleeding vs 78.6% for TEA) and less expensive ($8502 vs $9104 for TEA). The economic dominance of DPE over TEA was robust to sensitivity analyses across all assumptions of the model when varied among ranges spanning 30% of their respective baseline values.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cost-effectiveness analysis, we found DPE to be an economically dominant strategy to TEA (the traditional approach) in the management of high-risk lesions in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. DPE was less costly and more effective.

Over-the-scope clips are cost-effective in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding

Background

A recent prospective randomised controlled trial ('STING') showed superiority of over-the-scope clips compared to standard treatment in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding. Cost-effectiveness studies on haemostasis with over-the-scope clips have not been reported so far.

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the higher efficacy of the over-the-scope clips treatment outweighs the higher costs of the device compared to standard clips.

Methods

For the analysis, the study population of the STING trial was used. Costs for the hospital stay in total as well as treatment-related costs were obtained. The average cost-effectiveness ratio, representing the mean costs per designated outcome, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, expressing the additional costs of a new treatment strategy per difference in outcome were calculated. The designated outcome was defined as successful haemostasis without rebleeding within seven days, which was the primary endpoint of the STING trial. Average cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated for total costs of the hospital stay as well as the haemostasis treatment alone. The cost-effectiveness analysis is taken from the perspective of the care provider.Results: Total costs and treatment-related costs per patient were 13,007.07 € in the standard group vs 12,808.56 € in the over-the-scope clip group (p = 0.812) and 2084.98 € vs 1984.71 € respectively (p = 0.663). The difference was not statistically significant. Total costs per successful haemostasis (average cost-effectiveness ratio) were 30,677.05 € vs 15,104.43 € and 4917.41 € vs 2340.46 € for the haemostasis treatment. The additional costs per successful haemostasis with over-the-scope clip treatment (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) is -468.18 € for the whole treatment and -236.49€ for the haemostasis treatment.

Conclusions

Over-the-scope clip treatment is cost-effective in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding.

Endoscopic management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopic therapy is the mainstay of treatment for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). Injection plus mechanical or thermal therapy continues to be the most widely used option. New endoscopic devices such as the use of an inert powder or a new class of over-the-scope clip system have demonstrated encouraging results as a rescue therapy for difficult hemostasis. Emerging data suggest that Doppler ultrasound-guided endoscopic therapy may improve the outcome of peptic ulcer bleeding. This review sumarizes the recent advances in the management of NVUGIB. With increasing use of anti-platelet agents and anti-coagulants, the management of NVUGIB in patients on anti-thrombotic therapy is also discussed.

Successful hemostasis of active lower GI bleeding using a hemostatic powder as monotherapy, combination therapy, or rescue therapy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Acute lower GI bleeding is a frequent cause of hospital admission. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and performance of a hemostatic powder (TC-325/Hemospray) in the treatment of nonvariceal lower GI bleeding.

METHODS

Patients were enrolled into this prospective, multicenter, single-arm study at 4 tertiary care centers in Canada. Fifty patients with active lower GI bleeding of multiple different causes (52 bleeding sites) underwent topical endoscopic application of hemostatic powder. The primary endpoint was powder-related adverse events within 30 days of the index procedure. Secondary endpoints were initial hemostasis as well as recurrent bleeding and mortality within 30 days of the index procedure.

RESULTS

Most patients (96%) had a single bleeding site, and most bleeding (73%) was due to polypectomy. Overall, the powder was applied as monotherapy in 13 bleeding sites (25%), as combination therapy in 22 bleeding sites (42.3%), and as rescue therapy in 17 bleeding sites (32.7%). Hemostasis was achieved in 98% of patients. No patient experienced a powder-related adverse event. Five patients (10%) developed recurrent bleeding within 30 days. One patient (2%) died within 30 days of powder application, but the death was not directly related to hemostatic powder use.

CONCLUSIONS

The hemostatic powder is a safe and effective option for patients with lower GI bleeding of varying causes, and in particular, postpolypectomy hemorrhage. The hemostatic powder is effective as monotherapy, part of a combination approach, or as a rescue therapeutic option for the treatment of nonvariceal lower GI bleeding. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02099435.).

Hemospray hemostasis in bleeding diffusely ulcerated esophagus

Background and Aims

Bleeding from diffuse esophageal ulcerations can be difficult to treat. Hemospray is a hemostatic powder, and its mechanism of hemostasis is thought to be through concentrating clotting factors and forming mechanical plugs on bleeding vessels.

Methods

The authors present 3 consecutive cases of diffusely ulcerated esophagus with clinically significant bleeding. The first 2 cases failed conventional hemostatic treatment including clipping and injection therapy. In the third case, Hemospray was used as the first-line monotherapy.

Results

Immediate hemostasis was achieved in all 3 patients, and they did not develop recurrent bleeding for more than 2 months.

Conclusions

The authors propose that Hemospray application should be considered as the first-line therapy in diffuse esophageal ulcerations with clinically significant bleeding, potentially reducing the need to repeat endoscopy. Once the Hemospray achieves hemostasis, it provides a cyto-protective barrier on the diffusely ulcerated mucosa against ongoing acid reflux, allowing the new tissue to grow more efficiently during the ulcer healing period.

Effect of ultra-early and early gastroscopy on hemostasis in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

AIM

To compare the effect of ultra-early and early gastroscopy on hemostasis in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

A total of 110 cases of upper gastrointestinal bleeding were selected and divided into an ultra-early group (onset of admission and gastroscopy within 8 h, 48 cases) and an early group (onset of admission and gastroscopy within 8-24 h, 62 cases) according to the time of gastroscopy. The Forrest grade, bleeding detection rate, detection rate of active bleeding, success rate of hemostasis, bleeding volume, blood transfusion rate, hospitalization time, and rate of rebleeding were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The Forrest classification of bleeding in the two groups had no statistical difference (P > 0.05). There were also no significant differences in the detection rates of hemorrhage and active bleeding between the two groups (P > 0.05). The successful rates of hemostasis in the two groups were 91.67% and 93.55%, respectively, with no significant difference (P > 0.05). The amount of bleeding, hospital stay, and blood transfusion in the ultra-early group were 174.58 mL ± 13.14 mL, 5.71 d ± 1.65 d, and 4.17%, respectively, which were significantly lower than those in the early group (184.65 mL ± 16.24 mL, 7.02 d ± 2.01 d, and 8.06 %; P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in rebleeding rate between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Ultra-early or early gastroscopy is highly effective in detection of bleeding in patients with upper gastroin-testinal bleeding and achieving hemostasis, and ultra-early gastroscopy can better reduce bleeding and transfusion rates, shorten hospital stay, and is associated with better results.

Role of hemostatic powders in the management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding: A review

Despite the recent advances in endoscopic hemostatic techniques, the management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding could be sometimes challenging. Hemostatic powders such as Hemospray, EndoClot, and Ankaferd Blood Stopper have found their way into digestive endoscopy and are licenced in many countries especially for use in upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We reviewed the literature on the use of these hemostatic powders in different situations in lower gastrointestinal bleeding and looked at the success rate and rebleeding rate. Most of the data are derived from case reports, retrospective and prospective case series with absence of any randomized controlled trials. Hemostatic powders were used as primary or salvage therapy to control bleeding from polypectomy site, colonic tumors, diverticula, arteriovenous malformations, radiation proctitis, ischemic colitis, and surgical intestinal anastomosis. The rate of immediate control of bleeding is in the range of 88-100% with a recurrence rate of 3-13% except for radiation proctitis bleeding where rebleeding rate can be as high as 77%. Although there are many advantages for the use of local hemostatic agents in lower gastrointestinal bleeding, future randomized controlled trials comparing them with conventional methods are needed.

Effectiveness of the polysaccharide hemostatic powder in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Using propensity score matching

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Recently, the application of hemostatic powder to the bleeding site has been used to treat active upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). We aimed to assess the effectiveness of the polysaccharide hemostatic powder (PHP) in patients with non-variceal UGIB.

METHODS

We reviewed prospectively collected 40 patients with UGIB treated with PHP therapy between April 2016 and January 2017 (PHP group) and 303 patients with UGIB treated with conventional therapy between April 2012 and October 2014 (conventional therapy group). We compared the rate of successful hemostasis and the rebleeding between the two groups after as well as before propensity score matching using the Glasgow-Blatchford score and Forrest classification.

RESULTS

Thirty patients treated with the PHP and 60 patients treated with conventional therapy were included in the matched groups. Baseline patient characteristics including comorbidities, vital signs, and bleeding scores were similar in the matched groups. The rate of immediate hemostasis and 7-day and 30-day rebleeding were also similar in the two groups before and after matching. In the subgroup analysis, no significant differences in immediate hemostasis or rebleeding rate were noted between PHP in monotherapy and PHP combined with a conventional hemostatic method. At 30 days after the therapy, there were no significant PHP-related complications or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Given its safety, the PHP proved feasible for endoscopic treatment of UGIB, having similar effectiveness as that of conventional therapy. The PHP may become a promising hemostatic method for non-variceal UGIB.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing lumen-apposing metal stents with plastic stents in the management of pancreatic walled-off necrosis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided transmural drainage is effective in the management of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). A lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) has recently been developed specifically for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections that shows promising results. However, no cost-effectiveness data have been published in comparison with endoscopic drainage with traditional plastic stents (PSs). Our aim here was to compare the cost-effectiveness of LAMSs to PSs in the management of WON.

METHODS

A decision tree was developed to assess both LAMSs and PSs over a 6-month time horizon. For each strategy, after the insertion of the respective stents, patients were followed for subsequent need for direct endoscopic necrosectomy, adverse events requiring unplanned endoscopy, percutaneous drainage (PCD), or surgery using probabilities obtained from the literature. The unit of effectiveness was defined as successful endoscopic drainage without the need for PCD or surgery. Costs in 2016 U.S.$ were based on inpatient institutional costs. Sensitivity analyses were performed. An a priori willingness-to-pay threshold of U.S.$50,000 was established.

RESULTS

LAMSs were found to be more efficacious than PSs, with 92% and 84%, respectively, of the patients achieving successful endoscopic drainage of WON. LAMSs, however, were more costly: the average cost per patient of U.S.$20,029 compared with U.S.$15,941 for PSs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favored LAMSs at U.S.$49,214 per additional patient successfully treated. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.

CONCLUSION

LAMSs are more effective but also more costly than PSs in managing WON. Data from high-quality, adequately controlled, prospective, randomized trials are needed to confirm our findings.

Emerging Endoscopic Treatments for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage

Despite major improvements in endoscopic devices and therapeutic endoscopy, rebleeding rates and mortality have remained the same for several decades. Therefore, much interest has been paid to emerging therapeutic devices, such as the over-the-scope clip and hemostatic sprays. Other emerging technologies, such as radiofrequency ablation, endoscopic suturing devices, and ultrasound-guided angiotherapy, are also being investigated to improve therapeutic outcomes in specific situations. This narrative review details the technical aspects, clinical applications, outcomes, and potential limitations of these devices in the context of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

Plastic stents are more cost-effective than lumen-apposing metal stents in management of pancreatic pseudocysts

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage is an effective and accepted primary modality for management of pancreatic pseudocyst (PP). A lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) has recently been developed specifically for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections which may be superior to using traditional plastic stents (PS) but is more expensive. Because use of a stent involves a risk of unplanned endoscopy, percutaneous drainage (PCD) and surgery, their costs should also be included in the comparison and a cost-effectiveness analysis of LAMS and PS should therefore be performed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 A decision tree was developed assessing both endoscopic drainage strategies for patients with PP: LAMS and PS over a 6-month time horizon. For each strategy, inpatients received a stent and were followed for subsequent need for direct further interventions or adverse events leading to unplanned endoscopy, PCD, surgery, or successful endoscopic drainage using probabilities obtained from the literature. The unit of effectiveness was successful endoscopic drainage without need for PCD or surgery. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Success rates were 93.9 % for LAMS and 96.96 % for PS. Respective costs per successful drainage were US $ 18,129 (LAMS) and US $ 10,403 (PS). The LAMS strategy was thus characterized as dominated by the PS approach because it was costlier and less effective than PS. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings.

CONCLUSION

 Use of LAMS is not less effective and more costly than PS in management of patients with PP. As such, PS should be preferred over LAMS as initial management of these patients.