Rohit Sinha1, Khalida A Lockman2, Nicholas I Church1, John N Plevris1, Peter C Hayes1. 1. Centre for Liver and Digestive Disorders, The Royal Infirmary and The University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, UK. 2. Acute Medicine Unit, The Royal Infirmary and The University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic management of nonvariceal upper GI bleed (NVUGIB) can be challenging. Hemospray is a novel endoscopic hemostatic agent for NVUGIB. Its efficacy in attaining hemostasis in NVUGIB is promising, particularly with respect to technically difficult lesions. However, most of the currently available data are focused on its application as monotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate its efficacy as a second agent to adrenaline, or as an addition to the combination of adrenaline with either clips or a thermal device in NVUGIB. METHODS: Consecutive patients with Forrest 1a and 1b ulcer treated with hemostatic spray as an adjunct to conventional endoscopic hemostatic measures between July 2013 and June 2015 were included in this retrospective analysis. The endpoints were initial hemostasis, 7-day rebleeding, 30-day rebleeding, all-cause, and GI-related 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients (median age, 75 years, 50% men, 60% Forrest 1a ulcer) were treated with hemostatic spray as a second agent to adrenaline, or as an adjunct to the combination of adrenaline with either clips or a thermal device. Hemostatic spray was used as a second agent to adrenaline in 40% and as a third agent to combined dual therapy in 60%. Initial hemostasis was attained in 95% with an overall rebleeding rate at 7 days of 16%. There was no difference between the 7-day and 30-day rebleeding rates. The combination of hemostatic spray and adrenaline resulted in 100% initial hemostasis and 25% 7-day rebleeding. Similarly, initial hemostasis was achieved in 92% with a 9% rebleeding rate when hemostatic spray was used as the third agent to 2 of the conventional measures. All-cause mortality was 15% with 1 GI-related death (3%). CONCLUSIONS: In our single-center retrospective analysis, hemostatic spray appears promising as an adjunct to conventional methods for NVUGIB, although prospective controlled trials are needed to confirm this.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic management of nonvariceal upper GI bleed (NVUGIB) can be challenging. Hemospray is a novel endoscopic hemostatic agent for NVUGIB. Its efficacy in attaining hemostasis in NVUGIB is promising, particularly with respect to technically difficult lesions. However, most of the currently available data are focused on its application as monotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate its efficacy as a second agent to adrenaline, or as an addition to the combination of adrenaline with either clips or a thermal device in NVUGIB. METHODS: Consecutive patients with Forrest 1a and 1b ulcer treated with hemostatic spray as an adjunct to conventional endoscopic hemostatic measures between July 2013 and June 2015 were included in this retrospective analysis. The endpoints were initial hemostasis, 7-day rebleeding, 30-day rebleeding, all-cause, and GI-related 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients (median age, 75 years, 50% men, 60% Forrest 1a ulcer) were treated with hemostatic spray as a second agent to adrenaline, or as an adjunct to the combination of adrenaline with either clips or a thermal device. Hemostatic spray was used as a second agent to adrenaline in 40% and as a third agent to combined dual therapy in 60%. Initial hemostasis was attained in 95% with an overall rebleeding rate at 7 days of 16%. There was no difference between the 7-day and 30-day rebleeding rates. The combination of hemostatic spray and adrenaline resulted in 100% initial hemostasis and 25% 7-day rebleeding. Similarly, initial hemostasis was achieved in 92% with a 9% rebleeding rate when hemostatic spray was used as the third agent to 2 of the conventional measures. All-cause mortality was 15% with 1 GI-related death (3%). CONCLUSIONS: In our single-center retrospective analysis, hemostatic spray appears promising as an adjunct to conventional methods for NVUGIB, although prospective controlled trials are needed to confirm this.
Authors: Mansour A Parsi; Allison R Schulman; Harry R Aslanian; Manoop S Bhutani; Kuman Krishnan; David R Lichtenstein; Joshua Melson; Udayakumar Navaneethan; Rahul Pannala; Amrita Sethi; Guru Trikudanathan; Arvind J Trindade; Rabindra R Watson; John T Maple Journal: VideoGIE Date: 2019-06-27
Authors: Muhammad Aziz; Simcha Weissman; Tej I Mehta; Shafae Hassan; Zubair Khan; Rawish Fatima; Yuriy Tsirlin; Ammar Hassan; Michael Sciarra; Ali Nawras; Amit Rastogi Journal: Ann Gastroenterol Date: 2020-01-20
Authors: Joseph Jy Sung; Philip Wy Chiu; Francis K L Chan; James Yw Lau; Khean-Lee Goh; Lawrence Hy Ho; Hwoon-Young Jung; Jose D Sollano; Takuji Gotoda; Nageshwar Reddy; Rajvinder Singh; Kentaro Sugano; Kai-Chun Wu; Chun-Yin Wu; David J Bjorkman; Dennis M Jensen; Ernst J Kuipers; Angel Lanas Journal: Gut Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 23.059