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.

State-of-the-art management of acute bleeding peptic ulcer disease

The management of patients with non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding has evolved, as have its causes and prognosis, over the past 20 years. The addition of high-quality data coupled to the publication of authoritative national and international guidelines have helped define current-day standards of care. This review highlights the relevant clinical evidence and consensus recommendations that will hopefully result in promoting the effective dissemination and knowledge translation of important information in the management of patients afflicted with this common entity.