Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2021; 09(08): E1283-E1290
DOI: 10.1055/a-1495-4764
Original article

Effectiveness of hemostatic powders in lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Antonio Facciorusso
1   Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Italy
,
Marco Bertini
2   Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Department of Surgery, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
,
Michele Bertoni
2   Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Department of Surgery, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
,
Nicola Tartaglia
3   General Surgery Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Italy
,
Mario Pacilli
3   General Surgery Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Italy
,
Daryl Ramai
4   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Brooklyn Hospital Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, United States
,
Babu P. Mohan
5   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Saurabh Chandan
6   Gastroenterology Unit, CHI Health Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, United States
,
Antonio Ambrosi
3   General Surgery Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Italy
,
Rodolfo Sacco
1   Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Italy
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of hemostatic powders in the management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). We aimed to provide a pooled estimate of their effectiveness and safety based on the current literature.

Patients and methods Literature review was based on computerized bibliographic search of the main databases through to December 2020. Immediate hemostasis, rebleeding rate, adverse events, and mortality were the outcomes of the analysis. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model.

Results A total of 9 studies with 194 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 95 % of patients (95 % confidence interval [CI] 91.6 %–98.5 %), with no difference based on treatment strategy or bleeding etiology. Pooled 7- and 30-day rebleeding rates were 10.9 % (95 %CI 4.2 %–17.6 %) and 14.3 % (95 %CI 7.3 %–21.2 %), respectively. Need for embolization and surgery were 1.7 % (95 %CI 0 %–3.5 %) and 2.4 % (95 %CI 0.3 %–4.6 %), respectively. Overall, two patients (1.9 %, 95 %CI 0 %–3.8 %) experienced mild abdominal pain after powder application, and three bleeding-related deaths (2.3 %, 95 %CI 0.2 %–4.3 %) were registered in the included studies.

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

Supplementary material



Publication History

Received: 03 February 2021

Accepted: 14 April 2021

Article published online:
16 July 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Oakland K, Guy R, Uberoi R. et al. Acute lower GI bleeding in the UK: patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes in the first nationwide audit. Gut 2018; 67: 654-662
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Adegboyega T, Rivadeneira D. Lower GI bleeding: an update on incidences and causes. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2020; 33: 28-34
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Barkun AN, Moosavi S, Martel M. Topical hemostatic agents: a systematic review with particular emphasis on endoscopic application in GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 692-700
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Giday SA, Kim Y, Krishnamurty DM. et al. Long-term randomized controlled trial of a novel nanopowder hemostatic agent (TC-325) for control of severe arterial upper gastrointestinal bleeding in a porcine model. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 296-269
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Facciorusso A, Straus Takahashi M, Eyileten Postula C. et al. Efficacy of hemostatic powders in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis 2019; 51: 1633-1640
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gralnek IM, Dumonceau JM, Kuipers EJ. et al. Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2015; 47: a1-46
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D. et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2013 http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.html
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Chahal D, Lee JGH, Ali-Mohamad N. et al. High rate of re-bleeding after application of Hemospray for upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeds. Dig Liver Dis 2020; 52: 768-772
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Chen YI, Barkun A, Nolan S. Hemostatic powder TC-325 in the management of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a two-year experience at a single institution. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 167-171
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hookey L, Barkun A, Sultanian R. et al. Successful hemostasis of active lower GI bleeding using a hemostatic powder as monotherapy, combination therapy, or rescue therapy. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 865-871
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Holster IL, Brullet E, Kuipers EJ. et al. Hemospray treatment is effective for lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 75-78
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ng JL, Marican M, Mathew R. Topical haemostatic powder as a novel endoscopic therapy for severe colonic diverticular bleeding. ANZ J Surg 2019; 89: E56-E60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Prei JC, Barmeyer C, Bürgel N. et al. EndoClot polysaccharide hemostatic system in nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding: results of a prospective multicenter observational pilot study. J Clin Gastroenterol 2016; 50: e95-e100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Rodríguez de Santiago E, Burgos-Santamaría D, Pérez-Carazo L. et al. Hemostatic spray powder TC-325 for GI bleeding in a nationwide study: survival and predictors of failure via competing risks analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 581-590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Vitali F, Naegel A, Atreya R. et al. Comparison of Hemospray® and Endoclot™ for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding. World J Gastroenterol 2019; 25: 1592-1602
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hussein M, Alzoubaidi D, Weaver M. et al. Use of hemospray in the treatment of lower gastrointestinal bleeds: outcomes from the international multicentre hemospray registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: AB277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Mourad FH, Leong RW. Role of hemostatic powders in the management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a review. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 33: 1445-1453
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chen YI, Barkun AN. Hemostatic powders in gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2015; 25: 535-552
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 de Rezende DT, Brunaldi VO, Bernardo WM. et al. Use of hemostatic powder in treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E1704-E1713
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hussein M, Alzoubaidi D, Lopez MF. et al. Hemostatic spray powder TC-325 in the primary endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcer-related bleeding: multicenter international registry. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 36-43
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar