Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2023; 11(03): E288-E295
DOI: 10.1055/a-2032-4199
Review

Hemostatic spray (TC-325) vs. standard endoscopic therapy for non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Smit S. Deliwala‡
 1   Division of Digestive Diseases, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
,
Saurabh Chandan‡
 2   Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska, United States
,
Babu P. Mohan
 3   Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of Utah Health School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Shahab Khan
 4   Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Nitin Reddy
 5   Department of Internal Medicine, PSG Institute of Medical Science, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Daryl Ramai
 3   Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of Utah Health School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Jay A. Bapaye
 6   Department of Medicine, Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, New York, United States
,
Dushyant Singh Dahiya
 7   Department of Internal Medicine, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Saginaw, Michigan, United States
,
Lena L. Kassab
 8   Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States
,
Antonio Facciorusso
 9   Gastroenterology Unit, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
,
Saurabh Chawla
 1   Division of Digestive Diseases, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
,
Douglas Adler
10   Center for Advanced Therapeutic Endoscopy, Centura Health, Denver, Colorado, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

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 I2%.

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; I2 43), P = 0.2, including patients with oozing/spurting hemorrhage, RR 1.13 (CI 0.98–1.3; I2 35), P = 0.08. Failure to achieve hemostasis was higher in SET compared to TC-325, RR 0.30 (CI 0.12–0.77, I2 0), P = 0.01, including patients with oozing/spurting hemorrhage, RR 0.24 (CI 0.09 – 0.63, I2 0), P = 0.004. We found no difference between the two interventions in terms of rebleeding, RR 1.13 (CI 0.62–2.07, I2 26), P = 0.8 and LOS, standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.27 (CI, –0.20–0.74; I2 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; I2 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.

Supplementary material



Publication History

Received: 22 November 2022

Accepted after revision: 08 February 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
10 February 2023

Article published online:
24 March 2023

© 2023. 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 Gralnek IM, Stanley AJ, Morris AJ. et al. Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2021. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 300-332
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lanas A, Aabakken L, Fonseca J. et al. Clinical predictors of poor outcomes among patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in Europe. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 33: 1225-1233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cryer BL, Wilcox CM, Henk HJ. et al. The economics of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in a US managed-care setting: a retrospective, claims-based analysis. J Med Econ 2010; 13: 70-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Laine L, Barkun AN, Saltzman JR. et al. ACG Clinical Guideline: Upper gastrointestinal and ulcer bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol 2021; 116: 899-917
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Parsi MA, Schulman AR, Aslanian HR. et al. Devices for endoscopic hemostasis of nonvariceal GI bleeding (with videos). VideoGIE 2019; 4: 285-299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Alzoubaidi D, Lovat LB, Haidry R. Management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: where are we in 2018?. Frontline Gastroenterol 2019; 10: 35-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Smith LA, Stanley AJ, Bergman JJ. et al. Hemospray application in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Results of the survey to evaluate the application of hemospray in the luminal tract. J Clin Gastroenterol 2014; 48: e89-e92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Karna R, Deliwala S, Ramgopal B. et al. Efficacy of topical hemostatic agents in malignancy-related gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2023; 97: 202-208.e8
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Facciorusso A, Bertini M, Bertoni M. et al. Effectiveness of hemostatic powders in lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2021; 9: E1283-E1290
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Chen YI, Barkun AN. Hemostatic powders in gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2015; 25: 535-552
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Aslam N, Hussein M, Alzoubaidi D. et al. endoscopic application of hemospray as monotheraphy in the treatment of acute gastrointestinal bleeding: Outcomes from a 5-year international multicentre registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 95: AB120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Barkun AN, Adam V, Lu Y. et al. Using Hemospray improves the cost-effectiveness ratio in the management of upper gastrointestinal nonvariceal bleeding. J Clin Gastroenterol 2018; 52: 36-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Mutneja H, Bhurwal A, Go A. et al. Efficacy of Hemospray in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2020; 29: 69-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Chahal D, Sidhu H, Zhao B. et al. Efficacy of Hemospray (TC-325) in the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2021; 55: 492-508
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Ofosu A, Ramai D, John F. et al. The efficacy and safety of Hemospray for the management of gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2021; 55: e37-e45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 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
  • 17 Lau JYW, Pittayanon R, Kwek A. et al. Comparison of a hemostatic powder and standard treatment in the control of active bleeding from upper nonvariceal lesions: a multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2022; 175: 171-178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Chen YI, Wyse J, Lu Y. et al. TC-325 hemostatic powder versus current standard of care in managing malignant GI bleeding: a pilot randomized clinical trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 321-328.e1
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Martins BC, Machado AA, Scomparin RC. et al. TC-325 hemostatic powder in the management of upper gastrointestinal malignant bleeding: a randomized controlled trial. Endosc Int Open 2022; 10: E1350-E1357
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2021; 10: 89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC. et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D. et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 1-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-560
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR. et al. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. New York: J. Wiley; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-560
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000; 56: 455-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kwek BEA, Ang TL, Ong PLJ. et al. TC-325 versus the conventional combined technique for endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcers with high-risk bleeding stigmata: A randomized pilot study. J Dig Dis 2017; 18: 323-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Baracat FI, de Moura DTH, Brunaldi VO. et al. Randomized controlled trial of hemostatic powder versus endoscopic clipping for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Surg Endosc 2020; 34: 317-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sung JJ, Chiu PW, Chan FKL. et al. Asia-Pacific working group consensus on non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: an update 2018. Gut 2018; 67: 1757-1768
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Barkun AN, Almadi M, Kuipers EJ. et al. Management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: guideline recommendations from the International Consensus Group. Ann Intern Med 2019; 171: 805-822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Rajala MW, Ginsberg GG. Tips and tricks on how to optimally manage patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2015; 25: 607-617
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Babiuc RD, Purcarea M, Sadagurschi R. et al. Use of Hemospray in the treatment of patients with acute UGIB – short review. J Med Life 2013; 6: 117-119
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 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
  • 35 Loftus EV, Alexander GL, Ahlquist DA. et al. Endoscopic treatment of major bleeding from advanced gastroduodenal malignant lesions. Mayo Clin Proc 1994; 69: 736-740
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Song IJ, Kim HJ, Lee JA. et al. Clinical outcomes of endoscopic hemostasis for bleeding in patients with unresectable advanced gastric cancer. J Gastric Cancer 2017; 17: 374-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Sheibani S, Kim J, Chen B. et al. Natural history of acute upper GI bleeding due to tumours: short‐term success and long‐term recurrence with or without endoscopic therapy. Aliment Pharmacol Therap 2013; 38: 144-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar