Early application of haemostatic powder added to standard management for oesophagogastric variceal bleeding: a randomised trial

TC-325 Superiority in Malignant Gastrointestinal Bleeding: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of topical hemostatic agents, recommended for peptic ulcer bleeding, remains poorly characterized in malignant gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB).

METHODS

We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis assessing the efficacy of topical hemostatic agents in malignant GIB. The literature was searched using OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science databases (database inception to November 2023). Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical hemostatic agents with conventional endoscopic modalities in malignant GIB were included. Original RCT patient-level data were obtained. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Quality of the evidence was evaluated using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The primary outcome was immediate hemostasis; secondary outcomes were 30-day rebleeding and the composite measure of further bleeding (persistent bleeding or 30-day rebleeding). Other outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events, and need for additional nonendoscopic treatment. Odds ratios (ORs) from endpoint comparisons were pooled using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Overall, 985 citations were identified; 3 RCTs (n = 160 patients) were included with all assessing TC-325 (Hemospray). TC-325 achieved immediate hemostasis more often than conventional endoscopic modalities (OR 46.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.89-369.1) (low-level certainty). Thirty-day rebleeding (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11-0.70) and further bleeding (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.05-0.26) were both significantly lower with TC-325 (very-low-level certainty). All-cause mortality and need for additional nonendoscopic treatment did not differ between groups. No adverse events were reported. Subgroup analysis confirmed TC-325 superiority in patients with upper GIB.

DISCUSSION

TC-325 seems superior to conventional endoscopic therapy in managing patients with malignant GIB. TC-325 results in improvements in immediate hemostasis, 30-day rebleeding, and further bleeding, based on very low-to-low certainties of evidence.

Haemostatic spray in the management of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in children: A single-centre experience in Singapore

Introduction/Objectives

Haemostatic spray (HS; Hemospray) is a powder agent for endoscopic haemostasis in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). It has been shown to be effective and easy to administer. However, published data on efficacy and safety in children remain scarce. Our aim was to describe our experience with the use of HS in the management of UGIB.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective review was conducted of patients aged 0-18 receiving HS for endoscopic haemostasis from January 2017 to December 2021. Information was obtained on demographics, clinical presentation and comorbidities. Outcomes were successful initial haemostasis and rates of re-bleeding.

Results

A total of 25 applications of HS occurred in 23 patients. The median patient age was 8 years (range: 4 months to 16 years). HS was used in 17/25 (68%) applications as monotherapy. Other treatments employed were clip application and adrenaline injection. One hundred per cent initial haemostasis was achieved with three (13.0%) patients who experienced re-bleeding. All patients tolerated HS applications with no adverse events.

Conclusions

Our finding supports the use of HS in the management of UGIB in children. HS, either as monotherapy or in combination with other conventional therapy, could potentially be the treatment of choice in children with UGIB with its excellent feasibility and good safety profile.

Bleeding Complications of Portal Hypertension

In portal hypertension, acute variceal bleed is the cause of 2/3rd of all upper gastrointestinal bleeding episodes. It is a life-threatening emergency in patients with cirrhosis. Nonselective beta-blockers by decreasing the hepatic venous pressure gradient are the mainstay of medical therapy for the prevention of variceal bleeding and rebleeding. Evaluation of the severity of bleed, hemodynamic resuscitation, prophylactic antibiotic, and intravenous splanchnic vasoconstrictors should precede the endoscopy procedure. Endoscopic band ligation is the recommended endotherapy. Rescue transjugular intrahepatic port-systemic shunt (TIPS) is recommended for variceal bleed refractory to endotherapy. In patients with a high risk of failure of combined pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy, pre-emptive TIPS may improve the outcome. For gastric varices, "Sarin classification" is universally applied as it is simple and has therapeutic implication. For IGV1 and GOV2, injection cyanoacrylate glue is considered the endotherapy of choice. Endoscopic ultrasound is a useful modality in the management of gastric varices.

Challenges in the Management of Esophagogastric Varices and Variceal Hemorrhage in Cirrhosis - A Narrative Review

Over the past decade, significant advancements in pharmacological, endoscopic, and radiographic treatments have emerged in the management of patients with cirrhosis and esophagogastric varices or variceal hemorrhage. These advances have been in several areas, including the role of screening and primary prophylaxis (preventing an initial variceal bleed), evaluation and management of acute esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage, and in preventing variceal rebleeding. Therefore, we believe there is a need for an updated, evidence-based "narrative review" on this important clinical topic that will be relevant for internists, hospitalists, intensive care unit physicians, and those in training. We believe the guidance presented in this narrative review will enhance daily medical practice of health care professionals and has the potential to improve quality of care for these complex patients.

Emergent TIPS for acute gastroesophageal variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the safety and effectiveness of emergent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation for acute variceal bleeding (AVB) in cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data of thirty-three patients with AVB and HCC undergoing emergent TIPS creation from January 2016 to January 2022 were enrolled and were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcomes were the safety of emergent TIPS creation, the bleeding control rate, and the rebleeding rate. The secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), liver function, overt hepatic encephalopathy (HE), and shunt dysfunction.

RESULTS

Emergent TIPS creation was technically successful in 33 patients (100%) and one (3.0%) patient suffered a major procedure-related adverse event. The control rate of bleeding (within 5 days) was 100%. During a median follow-up period of 26.3 months, rebleeding occurred in 6 (18.2%) patients. The median OS was 20.0 months. The 6-week and 1-year survival rates were 87% and 65%, respectively. Laboratory tests showed no significant impairment of liver function following TIPS creation. The incidences of overt HE and shunt dysfunction were 24.2% and 6.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Emergent TIPS creation is feasible and effective for treatment of AVB in cirrhotic patients with HCC.

Endoscopic procedures in hepatology: Current trends and new developments

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has long been a reliable backbone in the diagnosis and management of hepatobilary disorders and their complications. However, with evolving non-invasive testing, personalised medicine has reframed the utility and necessity of endoscopic screening. Conversely, the growing interest and use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and advanced endoscopy within gastrointestinal units has also opened novel diagnostic and therapeutic avenues for patients with various hepatobiliary diseases. The integration of "advanced endoscopy" within the practice of hepatology is nowadays referred to as "endo-hepatology". In essence, endo-hepatology consists of two pillars: one focusing primarily on disorders of the liver parenchyma, vascular disorders, and portal hypertension, which is mainly captured via EUS, while the other targets the hepatobiliary tract via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and advanced imaging. Applications under the umbrella of endo-hepatology include, amongst others, EUS-guided liver biopsy, EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement, coil and glue embolisation of gastric varices as well as cholangioscopy. As such endo-hepatology could become an attractive concept wherein advanced endoscopy might reinforce the medical management of patients with hepatobiliary disorders and their complications after initial basic work-up. In this review, we discuss current trends and future developments within endo-hepatology and the remaining hurdles to overcome.

Feasibility of computed tomography portal venography in the preoperative evaluation of emergent TIPS creation for cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility of computed tomography portal venography (CTPV) in the preoperative evaluation of emergent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation for cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding (AVB).

METHODS

One hundred and forty-eightcirrhotic patients with AVB undergoing emergent TIPS creation from January 2016 to December 2022 in our institution were enrolled in the retrospective study. The primary outcome was the consistency between CTPV and endoscopy in the classification and grading of gastroesophageal varices (GEVs). The second outcome was extraluminal CTPV findings. The consistency of CTPV and endoscopy in the classification and grading of GEVs was determined by Kappa values.

RESULTS

Emergent TIPS creation was technically successful in all patients. Forty-five patients underwent preoperative endoscopy. The results of CTPV diagnosis of GEVs classification were that 112, 28, and 8 patients were classified as gastroesophageal varices type 1 (GOV1), GOV2, and isolated gastric varices type 1 (IGV1), respectively. In diagnosing the classification and grading of GEVs, CTPV showed substantial agreement with preoperative endoscopy, with Kappa values of 0.823 and 0.625, respectively. CTPV provided the afferent and afferent vessels of GEVs for emergent TIPS creation.

CONCLUSION

CTPV is feasible and effective to act as an alternative preoperative evaluation method to endoscopy for cirrhotic patients with AVB undergoing emergent TIPS creation.

Hemostatic powder for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Recent research advances

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a clinically common emergency condition. The common causes of AUGIB are peptic ulcer and esophagogastric variceal bleeding. Despite continuous improvements in endoscopic hemostasis techniques, endoscopic treatment is still unsuccessful in 5%-15% of patients. Hemostatic powder, a new drug for endoscopic hemostasis that is sprayed on the bleeding site with the assistance of an air pump, can absorb water to promote clotting substance aggregation and then adhere over the lesion, forming a mechanical barrier and then achieving hemostasis. It is convenient to spray hemostatic powder under endoscopy, where precise positioning is not warranted. The immediate hemostasis rate of hemostatic powder is often high, and it can be used as a remedy after the failure of conventional hemostasis. However, until now, there have been no recommendations in China regarding the use of hemostatic powder for the treatment of AUGIB. This article summarizes the mechanism, clinical applicability, and side effects of five major types of hemostatic powder by reviewing the existing evidence, with an aim to strengthen endoscopists' understanding of this drug.

Efficacy and safety of novel hemostatic gel in endoscopic sphincterotomy or endoscopic papillectomy: A multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopists often experience obstacles with traditional hemostasis using the side-viewing duodenoscope for bleeding after endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) or endoscopic papillectomy (EP).

AIMS

In this randomized controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of a novel hemostatic gel for post-EST or post-EP bleeding.

METHODS

A randomized trial was conducted from November 2020 to December 2021 at two tertiary centers in South Korea. Patients who experienced bleeding immediately after EST or EP were enrolled in the study, and primary hemostasis was achieved with either the novel hemostatic gel or epinephrine spray.

RESULTS

A total of 84 patients were enrolled in this study, and 41 patients were finally analyzed in each group. Hemostatic gel was significantly superior to epinephrine spray for successful primary hemostasis (100% vs. 85.4%; P = 0.026). ). In terms of delayed bleeding, no significant difference was observed between the hemostatic gel and epinephrine spray (2.4% vs. 7.3%; P = 0.329). The mean procedural time was significantly higher for the hemostatic gel than epinephrine spray (3.23 ± 1.94 vs. 1.76 ± 0.99 min; P < 0.001), and no differences were observed in the adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel hemostatic gel is expected to achieve satisfactory results with easier hemostasis for immediate bleeding after EST or EP. (Registered in Clinical Research Information Service: KCT0005607).

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD; due to viruses, alcohol, and/or nonobese [BMI < 30 kg/m²] nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) and clinically significant portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] > 10 mmHg and/or liver stiffness by transient elastography > 25 kPa) should receive, if no contraindications, nonselective beta blocker (NSBB) therapy (preferably carvedilol) to prevent the development of variceal bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in those patients unable to receive NSBB therapy with a screening upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy that demonstrates high risk esophageal varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the endoscopic prophylactic treatment of choice. EBL should be repeated every 2-4 weeks until variceal eradication is achieved. Thereafter, surveillance EGD should be performed every 3-6 months in the first year following eradication.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage (UGIH) and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 70 g/L prompting RBC transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin of 70-90 g/L is desired.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends that patients with ACLD presenting with suspected acute variceal bleeding be risk stratified according to the Child-Pugh score and MELD score, and by documentation of active/inactive bleeding at the time of upper GI endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5 : ESGE recommends the vasoactive agents terlipressin, octreotide, or somatostatin be initiated at the time of presentation in patients with suspected acute variceal bleeding and be continued for a duration of up to 5 days.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends antibiotic prophylaxis using ceftriaxone 1 g/day for up to 7 days for all patients with ACLD presenting with acute variceal hemorrhage, or in accordance with local antibiotic resistance and patient allergies.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends, in the absence of contraindications, intravenous erythromycin 250 mg be given 30-120 minutes prior to upper GI endoscopy in patients with suspected acute variceal hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends that, in patients with suspected variceal hemorrhage, endoscopic evaluation should take place within 12 hours from the time of patient presentation provided the patient has been hemodynamically resuscitated.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9 : ESGE recommends EBL for the treatment of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH).Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10 : ESGE recommends that, in patients at high risk for recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding following successful endoscopic hemostasis (Child-Pugh C  ≤ 13 or Child-Pugh B > 7 with active EVH at the time of endoscopy despite vasoactive agents, or HVPG > 20 mmHg), pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) within 72 hours (preferably within 24 hours) must be considered.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 11 : ESGE recommends that, for persistent esophageal variceal bleeding despite vasoactive pharmacological and endoscopic hemostasis therapy, urgent rescue TIPS should be considered (where available).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 12 : ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for acute gastric (cardiofundal) variceal (GOV2, IGV1) hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 13: ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection or EBL in patients with GOV1-specific bleeding.Strong recommendations, moderate quality evidence. 14: ESGE suggests urgent rescue TIPS or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for gastric variceal bleeding when there is a failure of endoscopic hemostasis or early recurrent bleeding.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 15: ESGE recommends that patients who have undergone EBL for acute EVH should be scheduled for follow-up EBLs at 1- to 4-weekly intervals to eradicate esophageal varices (secondary prophylaxis).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 16: ESGE recommends the use of NSBBs (propranolol or carvedilol) in combination with endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis in EVH in patients with ACLD.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

Development and validation of a nomogram for esophagogastric variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis: A cohort study in 1099 cases

OBJECTIVES

Esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EVB) is a catastrophic complication of decompensated liver cirrhosis. We aimed to establish a nomogram based on noninvasive clinical and imaging variables to predict the risk of EVB.

METHODS

The cut-off value of each variable was determined through univariate regression analysis. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine the risk factors and establish predictive models. The nomogram was established and validated using the calibration discrimination across different groups.

RESULTS

Six indicators, including platelet count, hemoglobin, albumin to globulin ratio, fasting blood glucose, serum chloride, and computed tomography portal vein diameter (CTPD), were found to be related to the risk of EVB. Two models, with or without CTPD, were established and compared. Model 1 with CTPD had better discrimination than model 2 with C-index of 0.893 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.872-0.915) and 0.862 (95% CI 0.837-0.887) in the primary cohort, respectively (Z = 2.027, P = 0.043). While the C-index of the two models in the validation cohort was 0.878 (95% CI 0.838-0.919) and 0.810 (95% CI 0.757-0.863). Moreover, the clinical decision analysis curve and clinical impact curve showed that these models might confer a significant net benefit on patients and provide a reference threshold for clinicians.

CONCLUSION

A nomogram using routine clinical indicators was established to predict the risk of EVB in patients with liver cirrhosis, which was verified in an independent cohort and demonstrated a great consistency.

Ендоскопічне лікування кровотеч із варикозно розширених вен шлунка

Кровотеча з варикозно розширених вен стравоходу та шлунка є найнебезпечнішим для життя ускладненням цирозу печінки та портальної гіпертензії. Кровотеча з варикозно розширених вен шлунка часто є серйознішою та може призвести до смерті. Для її зупинки спочатку проводиться ендоскопічне лікування. Зараз міжнародні консенсусні рекомендації щодо лікування кровотечі з варикозу шлунка відрізняються залежно від ендоскопічної класифікації. Варикозне розширення вен шлунка має іншу фізіологію та клінічні характеристики порівняно з варикозним розширенням вен стравоходу. Існує мало інформації про способи гемостазу при кровотечі зі шлункових вариксів. Незважаючи на те, що кілька нещодавніх розробок щодо препаратів і методів поліпшили результати при цій патології, консенсус щодо оптимального лікування не досягнутий. У цій статті розглядаються сучасні можливості ендоскопічного втручання при варикозній кровотечі зі шлунка за літературними даними з бази MedLine.

Timing of endoscopic intervention in patients with cirrhosis with acute variceal haemorrhage (TEACH trial): protocol for a randomised clinical trial (RCT)

INTRODUCTION

Acute variceal haemorrhage (AVH) in patients with cirrhosis remains a topic of great interest. Although several guidelines recommend endoscopy within 24 hours after AVH, there is no consensus on the most appropriate time to perform this intervention. The purpose of this study is to identify whether urgent endoscopy (within 6 hours after gastroenterological consultation) is superior to non-urgent endoscopy (between 6 hours and 24 hours after gastroenterological consultation) in reducing the rebleeding rate of these patients.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a single-centred, prospective, randomised clinical trial. Between March 2021 and December 2023, an estimated 400 patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive endoscopic intervention either within 6 hours or between 6 and 24 hours after gastroenterological consultation. Randomisation will be conducted by permuted block randomisation, with stratification by age, systolic blood pressure and pulse rate. The primary efficacy endpoint is rebleeding within 42 days after control of AVH. The secondary efficacy endpoints mainly include all-cause mortality within 42 days after randomisation, persistent bleeding, length of hospitalisation, etc. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Committees of Jinling Hospital (authorised ethics no. DZQH-KYLL-21-01). This trial will provide valuable insights into the timing of endoscopic intervention for AVH in patients with cirrhosis. Furthermore, the trial results and conclusions could provide high-quality evidence to guide clinical research and treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04786743.

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.

Oxidized dextran crosslinked polysaccharide/protein/polydopamine composite cryogels with multiple hemostatic efficacies for noncompressible hemorrhage and wound healing

Noncompressible hemorrhage caused by gunshots and sharp objects leads to higher trauma mortality, and cryogels have great potential in controlling noncompressible hemorrhage applications owing to their shape-memory properties. However, the use of non-toxic crosslinkers to prepare cryogels for noncompressible hemorrhage remains a challenge. In this study, a series of cryogels were prepared using oxidized dextran (ODex) as a biocompatible crosslinker, combined with the good hemostatic properties of chitosan (CS) and human-like collagen (HLC), and polydopamine nanoparticles (PDA-NPs) were also introduced to strengthen the shape recovery speed of the cryogels and further enhance their hemostatic performance. The CS/HLC/ODex/PDA-NPs (CHOP) cryogels presented a highly interconnected macroporous structure, powerful water/blood absorption capacity, robust mechanical performance, and rapid water/blood-triggered shape recovery. In vitro coagulation and coagulation mechanism tests showed that CHOP exhibited strong procoagulant ability, high adhesion to blood cells and fibrinogen, and the capacity to activate platelets and intrinsic pathways. In vivo hemostatic tests indicated that CHOP could effectively shorten the bleeding time and reduce the bleeding volume of liver incision bleeding and liver noncompressible hemorrhage. Meanwhile, CHOP exhibited good biocompatibility and biodegradability, and could promote wound healing. These results suggest that CHOP cryogels will be a promising hemostatic dressing.

Variceal Bleeding: Beyond Banding

Despite advances in the management of complications of portal hypertension, variceal bleeding continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. While endoscopic variceal band ligation remains first line therapy for treating bleeding and high-risk non-bleeding esophageal varices, alternate therapies have been explored, particularly in cases of refractory bleeding. The therapies being explored include stent placement, hemostatic powder use, over-the-scope clips and others. For gastric variceal bleeding, endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapies have recently emerged as promising interventions for hemostasis. The aim of this article is to highlight these alternative therapies and their potential role in the management of gastric and esophageal variceal bleeding.

Efficacy of hemostatic powders as monotherapy or rescue therapy in gastrointestinal bleeding related to neoplastic or non-neoplastic lesions

BACKGROUND

Hemostatic powder (HP) in gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is mainly used as rescue therapy after failure of conventional hemostatic procedures (CHP).

AIM

To define the best field of application and the efficacy of HP as first choice monotherapy or rescue therapy.

METHODS

We compared the efficacy of HP monotherapy, HP rescue therapy, and CHP in the management of active GIB due to neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions.

RESULTS

A total of 108 patients, 43 treated with HP as either first choice or rescue therapy and 65 with CHP, were included in the study. The most frequent sources of bleeding were peptic ulcer and malignancy. Immediate hemostasis rates were: HP monotherapy = 100% in peptic ulcer and 100% in malignancy; HP rescue therapy = 93.2% in peptic ulcer and 85.7% in malignancy; CHP = 77.9% in peptic ulcer and 41.7 in malignancy. Definitive hemostasis rates were: HP monotherapy = 50% in peptic ulcer and 45.5% in malignancy; HP rescue therapy = 73.3% in peptic ulcer and 85.7% in malignancy; CHP = 69.1% in peptic ulcer and 33.3% in malignancy. No difference was found in terms of additional intervention between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

HP is highly effective as monotherapy and rescue therapy in GIB. GIB related to malignancy may be the best field of application of HP, but confirmatory studies are necessary.

Effects of Preoperative Oral Carbohydrate on Cirrhotic Patients under Endoscopic Therapy with Anesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Preoperative fasting causes significant perioperative discomfort in patients. Preoperative oral carbohydrate (POC) is an important element of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol, but its effect on cirrhotic patients who tend to have abnormal gastric emptying remains unclarified. We investigated the influence of POC on gastric emptying and preprocedural well-being in cirrhotic patients. A prospective, randomized, controlled study of cirrhotic patients with gastroesophageal varices scheduled for elective therapeutic endoscopy under intravenous anesthesia was conducted. We enrolled 180 patients and divided them into three groups: those not supplemented with carbohydrates for 8 h before therapeutic endoscopy (control group) and those administered a carbohydrate beverage 2 h (2 h group) and 4 h (4 h group) before endoscopy. The residual gastric volume was quantified before anesthesia, gastric emptying was evaluated using gastric ultrasonography, and preprocedural well-being was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Preanesthesia gastric sonography scores were similar among the three groups. No patient had residual gastric volume > 1.5 ml/kg in the control and 4 h groups, but six patients (11%) had a residual gastric volume of >1.5 ml/kg in the 2 h group, hence were at a risk of regurgitation and aspiration. Moreover, VAS scores for six parameters (thirst, hunger, mouth dryness, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue) in the 2 h group and three parameters (thirst, hunger, and mouth dryness) in the 4 h group were significantly lower than those in the control group, suggesting a beneficial effect on cirrhotic patients' well-being. Preoperative gastric peristaltic and operation scores, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and in-hospital expenses were not significantly different among the three groups. Our study indicated that avoiding preoperative fasting with oral carbohydrates administered 4 h before anesthesia can be achieved in cirrhotic patients. Further studies to assess whether POC can help improve postoperative outcomes in cirrhotic patients are needed.

Experience with the use of a hemostatic powder in 152 patients undergoing urgent endoscopy for gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

In the recent years, topical hemostatic powders have been used for the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of this study was to report on the use of an hemostatic powder (Hemospray®), outside regular hours, by on-call endoscopists during urgent endoscopic procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, consecutive patients having undergone an urgent endoscopy with the use of Hemospray® from November 2015 to December 2018 in the Paris and suburbs area were included. We collected clinical, biological and endoscopic variables. The outcomes such as the recurrence, repeat endoscopy and hemostatic treatment need, complications and survival were also collected.

RESULTS

A total of 152 patients (mean 65 years old, 70.4% male) were included. Amongst the 31 endoscopists, 11 were "more experienced", and performed 48% of the endoscopies. The most common causes of bleeding were peptic ulcer (47.7%), malignancy (22.2%) and esophagitis (12.4%). Most bleedings originated from the upper GI tract (95.0%). Hemospray® was used as a salvage therapy in 60.8% of cases. Other hemostatic techniques were used in 52.9% of cases. Immediate bleeding cessation was noted in 79.0% of cases, recurrence in 39.9% of cases, and 26.4% of patients benefited from a repeat endoscopic hemostasis. 34 (23.0%) patients required a non-endoscopic treatment. At day 30, the survival rate was 71.6%. One complication was reported (perforation).

CONCLUSIONS

Hemostatic powder application by on-call endoscopists outside regular hours is technically feasible, but comes with a high risk of rebleeding in severely ill patients.

Minimal and Maximal Extent of Band Ligation for Acute Variceal Bleeding during the First Endoscopic Session

Background/Aims

The appropriate number of band ligations during the first endoscopic session for acute variceal bleeding is debatable. We aimed to compare the technical aspects of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in patients with variceal bleeding according to the number of bands placed per session.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed multicenter data from patients who underwent EVL for acute variceal bleeding. Patients were classified into minimal EVL (targeting only the foci with active bleeding or stigmata of recent bleeding) and maximal EVL (targeting potential bleeding sources in addition to the aforementioned targets) groups. The primary endpoint was 5-day treatment failure. The secondary endpoints were 30-day rebleeding, 30-day mortality, and intraprocedural adverse events.

Results

Minimal EVL was associated with lower rates of hypoxia and shock during EVL than maximal EVL (hypoxia, 0.9% vs 2.9%; shock, 1.3% vs 3.4%). However, treatment failure was higher in the minimal EVL group than in the maximal EVL group (odds ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 2.41). Age ≥60 years, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score ≥15, Child-Turcotte-Pugh classification C, presence of hepatocellular carcinoma, and systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg at initial presentation were also associated with treatment failure. In contrast, 30-day rebleeding and 30-day mortality did not differ between the minimal and maximal EVL groups.

Conclusions

Given that minimal EVL was associated with a high risk of treatment failure, maximal EVL may be a better option for variceal bleeding. However, the minimal EVL strategy should be considered in select patients because it does not affect 30-day rebleeding and mortality.

Recent Advances in the Management of Acute Variceal Hemorrhage

Gastrointestinal bleeding is one of the most relevant causes of death in patients with cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension, with gastroesophageal varices being the most frequent source of hemorrhage. Despite survival has improved thanks to the standardization on medical treatment aiming to decrease portal hypertension and prevent infections, mortality remains significant. In this review, our goal is to discuss the most recent advances in the management of esophageal variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis with specific attention to the treatment algorithms involving the use of indirect measurement of portal pressure (HVPG) and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), which aim to further reduce mortality in high-risk patients after acute variceal hemorrhage and in the setting of secondary prophylaxis.

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.

Updated strategies in the management of acute variceal haemorrhage

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the most recent studies regarding the management of acute esophageal variceal haemorrhage.

RECENT FINDINGS

New randomized control trials and meta-analyses confirmed the role of early transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in the management of acute variceal haemorrhage in Child-Pugh C (10-13) and B patients with active bleeding. A recent randomized controlled trial focused on the duration of vasoactive therapy showed no difference between 2 and 5 days of octreotide. A randomized trial showed decreased use of blood products for the correction of coagulopathy using a thromboelastography-guided approach (vs. conventional parameters) as well as decreased bleeding rates when compared with standard of care. A meta-analysis found that for rescue of variceal bleeding, self-expanding metallic stents were more efficacious and safer than balloon tamponade. In addition, studies showed that Child-Pugh C patients and those with hepatic vein pressure gradient more than 20 were at the highest risk of treatment failure, while model for end-stage liver disease was highly predictive of in-hospital mortality.

SUMMARY

In patients with severe coagulopathy and uncontrolled bleeding, TEG-based transfusion strategies are recommended. Antibiotics should be used for all cirrhotic patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, but should be tailored in accordance to local resistance patterns. Early TIPS for high-risk patients has been shown to have a significant survival benefit. Certain aspects of the management of variceal bleeding remain poorly studied such as the role of early TIPS in Child-B patients as well as strategies for rescue therapy in patients who are not TIPS candidates, and require further investigation.

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.

Treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS software, using Bayesian methods, and calculated the differences in treatments using odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed also the direct comparisons from RCTs using the same codes and the same technical details.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.

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.

Managing liver cirrhotic complications: Overview of esophageal and gastric varices

Managing liver cirrhosis in clinical practice is still a challenging problem as its progression is associated with serious complications, such as variceal bleeding that may increase mortality. Portal hypertension (PH) is the main key for the development of liver cirrhosis complications. Portal pressure above 10 mmHg, termed as clinically significant portal hypertension, is associated with formation of varices; meanwhile, portal pressure above 12 mmHg is associated with variceal bleeding. Hepatic vein pressure gradient measurement and esophagogastroduodenoscopy remain the gold standard for assessing portal pressure and detecting varices. Recently, non-invasive methods have been studied for evaluation of portal pressure and varices detection in liver cirrhotic patients. Various guidelines have been published for clinicians’ guidance in the management of esophagogastric varices which aims to prevent development of varices, acute variceal bleeding, and variceal rebleeding. This writing provides a comprehensive review on development of PH and varices in liver cirrhosis patients and its management based on current international guidelines and real experience in Indonesia.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Therapies for Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence and best practice advice statements regarding the use of endoscopic therapies in treating patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This review is framed around the 10 best practice advice points agreed upon by the authors, which reflect landmark and recent published articles in this field. This expert review also reflects the experiences of the authors who are gastroenterologists with extensive experience in managing and teaching others to treat patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopic therapy should achieve hemostasis in the majority of patients with NVUGIB. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Initial management of the patient with NVUGIB should focus on resuscitation, triage, and preparation for upper endoscopy. After stabilization, patients with NVUGIB should undergo endoscopy with endoscopic treatment of sites with active bleeding or high-risk stigmata for rebleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Endoscopists should be familiar with the indications, efficacy, and limitations of currently available tools and techniques for endoscopic hemostasis, and be comfortable applying conventional thermal therapy and placing hemoclips. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Monopolar hemostatic forceps with low-voltage coagulation can be an effective alternative to other mechanical and thermal treatments for NVUGIB, particularly for ulcers in difficult locations or those with a rigid and fibrotic base. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Hemostasis using an over-the-scope clip should be considered in select patients with NVUGIB, in whom conventional electrosurgical coagulation and hemostatic clips are unsuccessful or predicted to be ineffective. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Hemostatic powders are a noncontact endoscopic option that may be considered in cases of massive bleeding with poor visualization, for salvage therapy, and for diffuse bleeding from malignancy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Hemostatic powder should be preferentially used as a rescue therapy and not for primary hemostasis, except in cases of malignant bleeding or massive bleeding with inability to perform thermal therapy or hemoclip placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should understand the risk of bleeding from therapeutic endoscopic interventions (eg, endoluminal resection and endoscopic sphincterotomy) and be familiar with the endoscopic tools and techniques to treat intraprocedural bleeding and minimize the risk of delayed bleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: In patients with endoscopically refractory NVUGIB, the etiology of bleeding (peptic ulcer disease, unknown source, post surgical); patient factors (hemodynamic instability, coagulopathy, multi-organ failure, surgical history); risk of rebleeding; and potential adverse events should be taken into consideration when deciding on a case-by-case basis between transcatheter arterial embolization and surgery. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization of high-risk ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy is not encouraged.

Evaluation and Management of Esophageal and Gastric Varices in Patients with Cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is a complication of cirrhosis that defines decompensation. Important advances in the management of gastroesophageal varices have led to a significant decrease in the morbidity and mortality. Achieving these results in clinical practice is contingent on clinicians applying the best practice strategies and appropriate referral to a tertiary center. Several quality metrics were developed by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. This article aims to update outpatient and inpatient strategies to include the latest recommendations on variceal screening and surveillance, primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and therapy for patients with acute variceal bleeding.

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.

Hemospray® during Emergency Endoscopy: Indonesia's First Experience from 37 Patients

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is one of the main indications for performing endoscopy; this condition can be life threatening. In some cases, emergency endoscopy (EE) is necessary to identify the source and stop the bleeding. Recently, hemostatic powder was introduced, one of which was Hemospray® (Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC, USA), which showed promising results for rapid hemostasis in primary treatment and salvage when conventional methods fails. Samples were taken retrospectively for a duration of 3 years since Hemospray was first introduced in Indonesia, from January 2016 to January 2019. The total number of EEs that used Hemospray were 37 procedures for 37 patients; 21 (56.8%) were males and 16 (43.2%) were females, while the average age was 67.8 years. Hemospray was used for upper GIB in 30 cases (81.1%) and for lower GIB in 7 (18.9%). Hemospray was used as monotherapy for 24 patients (64.9%) and as secondary modality for 13 (35.1%). The primary treatment was argon plasma coagulation in 8 cases (21.6%), adrenaline in 4 (10.8%), and Histoacryl® in 1 (2.7%). The mortality rate was 37.8% (n = 14); most deaths occurred within 30 days after the EE was performed, and none of the deaths was related to endoscopy or GIB. Hemospray was able to achieve hemostasis in all cases. Furthermore, there was no event of rebleeding. When conventional modalities alone were inadequate, the combination with Hemospray appeared to be able to control the bleeding. One of the main advantages of Hemospray is the ease in reaching difficult areas, and it require less skill compared to conventional modalities.

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.

Comparison of drugs facilitating endoscopy for patients with acute variceal bleeding: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the efficacy of different drugs facilitating endoscopy in patients with acute variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials which compared the efficacy of vasoactive drugs (vasopressin, terlipressin, octreotide, somatostatin) with placebo or each other. The primary outcomes were 6-week and 5-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 5-day rebleeding, control of initial bleeding and adverse events. Pairwise and network meta-analysis were performed.

RESULTS

We identified 14 RCTs involved 2,187 patients. Four drugs had comparable clinical efficacy in all involving outcomes, except for adverse events. However, we do exhibit a superiority when vasopressin (OR, 4.40; 95% CI: 1.04-19.57), terlipressin (OR, 4.58; 95% CI: 1.63-13.63), octreotide (OR, 5.79; 95% CI: 2.41-16.71) and somatostatin (OR, 5.15; 95% CI: 1.40-27.39) were compared to placebo respectively as for initial hemostasis. In addition, only octreotide was more effective than placebo in decreasing 5-day rebleeding (OR, 0.44; 95% CI: 0.22-0.90). Meanwhile, octreotide was shown to have the highest probability ranking the best to improve initial hemostasis (mean rank =1.8) and carries a lowest risk of adverse events (9.1%) and serious adverse events (0.0%) compared to other drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Balanced with curative effect and tolerability, octreotide may be the preferred vasoactive drug facilitating endoscopy.

Gastric variceal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are no well-established guidelines for the management of gastric variceal bleeding. Endoscopic management of acute gastric variceal bleeding has been premised on the injection of sclerosants and synthetic glue. However, these therapies are associated with various complications including systemic embolization and recurrent bleeding. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions including coil injection have emerged as promising modalities with high technical and clinical success rates and low rates of recurrence.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review we discuss the classification, natural history, prognosis, and treatment options of gastric variceal. Discussion of treatment is further subdivided into primary and secondary prophylaxis and the management of acute gastric variceal bleeding with a focus on emerging endoscopic interventions.

SUMMARY

Cyanoacrylate injection may have a role in the primary and secondary prophylaxis of gastric variceal. Endoscopic band ligation should be considered for GOV1. EUS-guided injection of synthetic glues like cyanoacrylate is superior to direct injection. However, EUS-guided coil injections with or without cyanoacrylate should be considered first-line endoscopic treatment in all bleeding gastric variceal except for GOV1. Balloon retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) remain important interventional radiologic therapeutic options as primary therapy in centers without EUS expertise or as salvage therapy.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging-based assessment of terlipressin vs. octreotide on renal function in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding (CHESS1903): study protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Acute variceal bleeding is one of the critical complications in patients with liver cirrhosis. Severe renal vasoconstriction in consequence of low peripheral vascular resistance triggers the reduction of glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and thus induces acute kidney injury (AKI)/hepato-renal syndrome (HRS). Terlipressin and octreotide have been used in the management of cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding. Also, terlipressin has been recommended as the international first-line pharmacological therapy for the treatment of HRS. In addition, the use of renal functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has become increasingly prevalent in research and clinical applications. However, the renal function-protective effect of terlipressin and octreotide and the value of fMRI in monitoring renal function remains unclear in patients with cirrhosis undergoing acute variceal bleeding.

METHODS

This is a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (RCT). Participants will be 1:1 assigned randomly into either terlipressin or octreotide groups. Sixty participants with clinically and/or pathologically diagnosed cirrhosis and active gastroesophageal variceal bleeding (GVB) will be recruited in several sites in China. Participants will receive either the treatment of terlipressin or octreotide after assigned into each group. The primary end point for the trial is the renal function. The secondary end points are (I) renal perfusion; (II) renal blood oxygenation; (III) failure to control bleeding; (IV) intra-hospital rebleeding; (V) intra-hospital mortality; (VI) adverse events (AE); (VII) overall survival. Statistical analysis including multivariate Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank test, etc. will be conducted.

DISCUSSION

The study will provide new insight into the protection of renal function in the process of the treatment of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04028323.