TC-325 versus the conventional combined technique for endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcers with high-risk bleeding stigmata: A randomized pilot study

Hemospray Versus Conventional Therapy for Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hemospray (TC-325; Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC) has been used effectively in hemostasis in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Current guidelines suggest using Hemospray as a temporizing measure or adjunct technique. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Hemospray as a modality for primary hemostasis. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases from inception to August 1, 2022. Three independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles describing the application of Hemospray as the primary method of hemostasis in non-variceal upper GI bleeding patients. Three reviewers independently reviewed and abstracted data and assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes were (1) primary hemostasis rate, (2) rebleeding rate until hospital discharge or death, (3) need for surgery, and (4) overall mortality rate. Of the 211 studies identified, 146 underwent title and abstract review, and four were included in the systematic review. Pooled results from 303 patients showed that compared to standard of care, Hemospray has significantly higher odds of primary hemostasis (OR: 3.48, 95% CI: 1.09-11.18, p = 0.04). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of rebleeding rates (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.24-2.55, p = 0.69), need for surgery (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 0.35-7.41, p = 0.54), or overall mortality (OR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.56-2.08, p = 0.83). This systematic review and meta-analysis prove that Hemospray is a better modality of primary hemostasis in non-variceal upper GI bleeding when used as a primary method. At the same time, there is no significant difference in complications, including rebleeding, need for surgical intervention, and all-cause mortality.

Adverse events associated with the gold probe and the injection gold probe devices used for endoscopic hemostasis: A MAUDE database analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding accounts for over half a million admissions annually and is the most common GI diagnosis requiring hospitalization in the United States. Bipolar electrocoagulation devices are used for the management of gastrointestinal bleeding. There is no data on device-related adverse events for gold probe (GP) and injection gold probe (IGP).

AIM

To analyze this using the Food and Drug Administration (FDA's) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database from 2013 to 2023.

METHODS

We examined post-marketing surveillance data on GP and IGP from the FDA MAUDE database to report devicerelated and patient-related adverse events between 2013-2023. The MAUDE database is a publicly available resource providing over 4 million records relating to medical device safety. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics V.27.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, United States).

RESULTS

Our search elicited 140 reports for GP and 202 reports for IGP, respectively, during the study period from January 2013 to August 2023. Malfunctions reportedly occurred in 130 cases for GP, and actual patient injury or event occurred in 10 patients. A total of 149 patients (74%) reported with Injection GP events suffered no significant consequences due to the device failure, but 53 patients (26%) were affected by an event.

CONCLUSION

GP and IGP are critical in managing gastrointestinal bleeding. This study of the FDA MAUDE database revealed the type, number, and trends of reported device-related adverse events. The endoscopist and support staff must be aware of these device-related events and be equipped to manage them if they occur.

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.

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.

Comparison of a Hemostatic Powder and Standard Treatment in the Control of Active Bleeding From Upper Nonvariceal Lesions : A Multicenter, Noninferiority, Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of the hemostatic powder TC-325 as a single endoscopic treatment for acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To compare TC-325 with standard endoscopic hemostatic treatments in the control of active bleeding from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal causes.

DESIGN

One-sided, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02534571).

SETTING

University teaching hospitals in the Asia-Pacific region.

PATIENTS

224 adult patients with acute bleeding from a nonvariceal cause on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

INTERVENTION

TC-325 (n = 111) or standard hemostatic treatment (n = 113).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was control of bleeding within 30 days. Other outcomes included failure to control bleeding during index endoscopy, recurrent bleeding after initial hemostasis, further interventions, blood transfusion, hospitalization, and death.

RESULTS

224 patients were enrolled (136 with gastroduodenal ulcers [60.7%], 33 with tumors [14.7%], and 55 with other causes of bleeding [24.6%]). Bleeding was controlled within 30 days in 100 of 111 patients (90.1%) in the TC-325 group and 92 of 113 (81.4%) in the standard treatment group (risk difference, 8.7 percentage points [1-sided 95% CI, 0.95 percentage point]). There were fewer failures of hemostasis during index endoscopy with TC-325 (3 [2.7%] vs. 11 [9.7%]; odds ratio, 0.26 [CI, 0.07 to 0.95]). Recurrent bleeding within 30 days did not differ between groups (9 [8.1%] vs. 10 [8.8%]). The need for further interventions also did not differ between groups (further endoscopic treatment: 8 [7.2%] vs. 10 [8.8%]; angiography: 2 [1.8%] vs. 4 [3.5%]; surgery: 1 [0.9%] vs. 0). There were 14 deaths in each group (12.6% vs. 12.4%).

LIMITATION

Clinicians were not blinded to treatment.

CONCLUSION

TC-325 is not inferior to standard treatment in the endoscopic control of bleeding from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal causes.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

General Research Fund to the University Grants Committee, Hong Kong SAR Government.

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

B. Nulsen D. M. Jensen.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

High rate of re-bleeding after application of Hemospray for upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeds

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Hemospray (TC-325, Cook Medical) has recently been approved for use in GI bleeding. Specific clinical indications and predictors of success or failure have not been well delineated.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Hemospray use at a tertiary center. We assessed demographics and characteristics of Hemospray use. We analyzed outcomes of hemostasis, rebleeding, need for embolization or surgery, and death.

RESULTS

86 applications of Hemospray were identified. The most common etiology of upper GI bleeds were ulcers (67.1%) whilst the etiology of lower GI bleeds varied. Hemospray was applied as monotherapy in 28 procedures (32.6%). Immediate hemostasis rate was 88.4%, but there was a high rate of re-bleeding (33.7%). Most re-bleeds occurred within 7 days (86.2%). Syncope was an independent predictive factor re-bleeding at 7 days for EGD (OR = 12.16, 95% CI = 1.51-97.75, P = 0.019). Bleeding refractory to endoscopic treatment with hemospray required radiological embolization in 9 instances, and surgery in 9 instances. Hemospray therapy was protective against need for embolization (p < 0.05). 2 patients underwent liver transplantation and there was a total of 5 deaths. Hepatic disease was an independent predictor of death (OR = 47.15, 95% CI = 2.42-916.89, P = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

Hemospray is effective in achieving immediate hemostasis but is plagued by high rates of rebleeding. Syncope is a predictor of rebleeding, and hepatic disease is a predictor of death in patients undergoing Hemospray therapy. Despite high rates of embolization and surgery, Hemospray may reduce need for embolization. Hemospray use during endoscopy should prompt physicians to consider early re-look endoscopy and more aggressive therapy.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy of hemostatic powders in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence on the efficacy of hemostatic powders in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIMS

Provide a pooled estimate of the efficacy and safety profile of hemostatic powders in digestive endoscopy.

METHODS

A computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed through December 2018. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was immediate hemostasis rate. Secondary outcomes were rebleeding rate (either at 7 and 30 days), bleeding-related mortality, and all-cause mortality rate.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies, of which three were randomized-controlled trials, with 1063 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 95.3% (93.3%-97.3%) of patients, with no difference based on treatment strategy, hemostatic agent used, bleeding etiology. Success rate was slightly lower in spurting bleeding (91.9%). Hemostatic powders showed similar efficacy as compared to conventional endoscopic therapy (odds ratio: 0.84, 0.06-11.47; p = 0.9). Thirty-day rebleeding rate was 16.9% (9.8%-24%) with no difference in comparison to other endoscopic treatments (odds ratio 1.59, 0.35-7.21; p = 0.55). All-cause and bleeding-related mortality rates were 7.6% (4%-10.8%) and 1.4% (0.5%-2.4%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Novel hemostatic powders represent a user-friendly and effective tool in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

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.

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.

Management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common medical emergency, with a reported mortality of 2-10%. Patients identified as being at very low risk of either needing an intervention or death can be managed as outpatients. For all other patients, intravenous fluids as needed for resuscitation and red cell transfusion at a hemoglobin threshold of 70-80 g/L are recommended. After resuscitation is initiated, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and the prokinetic agent erythromycin may be administered, with antibiotics and vasoactive drugs recommended in patients who have cirrhosis. Endoscopy should be undertaken within 24 hours, with earlier endoscopy considered after resuscitation in patients at high risk, such as those with hemodynamic instability. Endoscopic treatment is used for variceal bleeding (for example, ligation for esophageal varices and tissue glue for gastric varices) and for high risk non-variceal bleeding (for example, injection, thermal probes, or clips for lesions with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessel). Patients who require endoscopic therapy for ulcer bleeding should receive high dose proton pump inhibitors after endoscopy, whereas those who have variceal bleeding should continue taking antibiotics and vasoactive drugs. Recurrent ulcer bleeding is treated with repeat endoscopic therapy, with subsequent bleeding managed by interventional radiology or surgery. Recurrent variceal bleeding is generally treated with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. In patients who require antithrombotic agents, outcomes appear to be better when these drugs are reintroduced early.