BACKGROUND AND AIM: Recently, the application of hemostatic powder to the bleeding site has been used to treat active upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). We aimed to assess the effectiveness of the polysaccharide hemostatic powder (PHP) in patients with non-variceal UGIB. METHODS: We reviewed prospectively collected 40 patients with UGIB treated with PHP therapy between April 2016 and January 2017 (PHP group) and 303 patients with UGIB treated with conventional therapy between April 2012 and October 2014 (conventional therapy group). We compared the rate of successful hemostasis and the rebleeding between the two groups after as well as before propensity score matching using the Glasgow-Blatchford score and Forrest classification. RESULTS: Thirty patients treated with the PHP and 60 patients treated with conventional therapy were included in the matched groups. Baseline patient characteristics including comorbidities, vital signs, and bleeding scores were similar in the matched groups. The rate of immediate hemostasis and 7-day and 30-day rebleeding were also similar in the two groups before and after matching. In the subgroup analysis, no significant differences in immediate hemostasis or rebleeding rate were noted between PHP in monotherapy and PHP combined with a conventional hemostatic method. At 30 days after the therapy, there were no significant PHP-related complications or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Given its safety, the PHP proved feasible for endoscopic treatment of UGIB, having similar effectiveness as that of conventional therapy. The PHP may become a promising hemostatic method for non-variceal UGIB.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Recently, the application of hemostatic powder to the bleeding site has been used to treat active upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). We aimed to assess the effectiveness of the polysaccharide hemostatic powder (PHP) in patients with non-variceal UGIB. METHODS: We reviewed prospectively collected 40 patients with UGIB treated with PHP therapy between April 2016 and January 2017 (PHP group) and 303 patients with UGIB treated with conventional therapy between April 2012 and October 2014 (conventional therapy group). We compared the rate of successful hemostasis and the rebleeding between the two groups after as well as before propensity score matching using the Glasgow-Blatchford score and Forrest classification. RESULTS: Thirty patients treated with the PHP and 60 patients treated with conventional therapy were included in the matched groups. Baseline patient characteristics including comorbidities, vital signs, and bleeding scores were similar in the matched groups. The rate of immediate hemostasis and 7-day and 30-day rebleeding were also similar in the two groups before and after matching. In the subgroup analysis, no significant differences in immediate hemostasis or rebleeding rate were noted between PHP in monotherapy and PHP combined with a conventional hemostatic method. At 30 days after the therapy, there were no significant PHP-related complications or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Given its safety, the PHP proved feasible for endoscopic treatment of UGIB, having similar effectiveness as that of conventional therapy. The PHP may become a promising hemostatic method for non-variceal UGIB.