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

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

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.

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.

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleed as first presentation of primary systemic amyloidosis - A case report

Gastrointestinal (GI) tract manifestations of amyloid deposition include diarrhea, GI hemorrhage, steatorrhea, or constipation. Here, we report an elderly female presenting with GI hemorrhage due to gastric ulceration and 4-6 polypoidal lesions with intermittent ooze in the duodenum as a first presentation of primary systemic amyloidosis. The bleed was managed with proton-pump inhibitors and hemospray application. She received chemotherapy for multiple myeloma after stabilization. A high index of suspicion is needed to diagnose amyloidosis causing GI hemorrhage.

Upper gastrointestinal active bleeding ulcers: review of literature on the results of endoscopic techniques and our experience with Hemospray

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding can lead from mild to immediately life-threatening clinical conditions. Upper GI bleeding (UGIB) is associated with a mortality of 6-10%. Spurting and oozing bleeding are associated with major risk of failure. Hemospray™ (TC-325), a new hemostatic powder, may be useful in these cases. Aim of this study is to review the efficacy of traditional endoscopic treatment in Forrest 1a-1b ulcers and to investigate the usefulness of Hemospray in these patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed and articles that evaluated hemostatic efficacy and rebleeding rate with traditional endoscopic techniques related to Forrest classification were reviewed. Patients with Forrest 1a-1b ulcers were treated with Hemospray, either as monotherapy or in association with other endoscopic techniques. Primary outcome was immediate hemostasis, secondary outcomes were recurrent bleeding and adverse events related to Hemospray use.

RESULTS

Analysis of literature showed that mean initial hemostasis success rate in Forrest 1a-1b ulcers was of 92.8%, and mean rebleeding rate was of 13.3%. We enrolled 13 patients treated with Hemospray. Initial hemostasis was achieved in 100% and we reported three cases of rebleeding. No adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

Forrest 1a-1b bleeding ulcer is very difficult to treat. Hemospray appears to be an effective hemostatic therapy for these ulcers. However, additional prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

Safety and efficacy of Hemospray® in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Hemospray (Cook Medical, USA) has recently been approved in Canada for the management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestional bleeding (UGIB).

OBJECTIVE

To review the authors' experience with the safety and efficacy of Hemospray for treating UGIB.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who required endoscopic evaluation for suspected UGIB and were treated with Hemospray.

RESULTS

From February 2012 to July 2013, 19 patients (mean age 67.6 years) with UGIB were treated with Hemospray. A bleeding lesion was identified in the esophagus in one (5.3%) patient, the stomach in five (26.3%) and duodenum in 13 (68.4%). Bleeding was secondary to peptic ulcers in 12 (63.2%) patients, Dieulafoy lesions in two (10.5%), mucosal erosion in one (5.3%), angiodysplastic lesions in one (5.3%), ampullectomy in one (5.3%), polypectomy in one (5.3%) and an unidentified lesion in one (5.3%). The lesions showed spurting hemorrhage in four (21.1%) patients, oozing hemorrhage in 11 (57.9%) and no active bleeding in four (21.1%). Hemospray was administered as monotherapy in two (10.5%) patients, first-line modality in one (5.3%) and rescue modality in 16 (84.2%). Hemospray was applied prophylactically to nonbleeding lesions in four (21.1%) patients and therapeutically to bleeding lesions in 15 (78.9%). Acute hemostasis was achieved in 14 of 15 (93.3%) patients. Rebleeding within seven days occurred in seven of 18 (38.9%) patients. Potential adverse events occurred in two (10.5%) patients and included visceral perforation and splenic infarct. Mortality occurred in five (26.3%) patients but the cause of death was unrelated to gastrointestinal bleeding with the exception of one patient who developed hemoperitoneum.

CONCLUSIONS

The high rates of both acute hemostasis and recurrent bleeding suggest that Hemospray may be used in high-risk cases as a temporary measure or a bridge toward more definitive therapy.