AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Advanced endohaemostatic technique performance and experience is extremely variable in distribution amongst paediatric endoscopists. Haemostatic spray (Hemospray), a novel endohaemostatic topically applied powder has the advantage of extreme ease of use and; hence may lower the threshold of competency required by the endoscopist thereby potentially reducing mortality. The aim of the study is to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and the safety of haemostatic spray in paediatric patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB). METHODS: Prospective enrolment of children with AUGIB (Group 1) occurred, either as primary therapy or as an adjunct to standard endohaemostatic therapeutic techniques. Patients were assessed for likely need for endohaemostatic intervention of >8 of 24 of the paediatric Sheffield AUGIB score.A follow-up endoscopy occurred in those deemed to have clinical need pre-discharge. For comparison, another group (Group 2) of patients, who received conventional endohaemostatic treatment in the preceding 36 months, were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 20 applications of Hemospray occurred in 17 patients (8 boys, median (range) age: 6.5 years (2 days to 17.75 years) and a total of 29 patients were enrolled in Group 2 (16 boys, median [range] age: 5.1 [0.25-17.0]). All patients tolerated haemostatic spray applications with no adverse events. The haemostatic spray group achieved 100% initial haemostasis with 18% rebleeding rate, although only a 6% failure rate after re-application. In the conventional group, similar 100% initial haemostasis was achieved with 24% rebleeding rate and 7% failure rate necessitating surgical interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This paediatric series suggests that monotherapy with haemostatic spray is as effective as conventional approaches in the management of AUGIB.
AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Advanced endohaemostatic technique performance and experience is extremely variable in distribution amongst paediatric endoscopists. Haemostatic spray (Hemospray), a novel endohaemostatic topically applied powder has the advantage of extreme ease of use and; hence may lower the threshold of competency required by the endoscopist thereby potentially reducing mortality. The aim of the study is to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and the safety of haemostatic spray in paediatric patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB). METHODS: Prospective enrolment of children with AUGIB (Group 1) occurred, either as primary therapy or as an adjunct to standard endohaemostatic therapeutic techniques. Patients were assessed for likely need for endohaemostatic intervention of >8 of 24 of the paediatric Sheffield AUGIB score.A follow-up endoscopy occurred in those deemed to have clinical need pre-discharge. For comparison, another group (Group 2) of patients, who received conventional endohaemostatic treatment in the preceding 36 months, were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 20 applications of Hemospray occurred in 17 patients (8 boys, median (range) age: 6.5 years (2 days to 17.75 years) and a total of 29 patients were enrolled in Group 2 (16 boys, median [range] age: 5.1 [0.25-17.0]). All patients tolerated haemostatic spray applications with no adverse events. The haemostatic spray group achieved 100% initial haemostasis with 18% rebleeding rate, although only a 6% failure rate after re-application. In the conventional group, similar 100% initial haemostasis was achieved with 24% rebleeding rate and 7% failure rate necessitating surgical interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This paediatric series suggests that monotherapy with haemostatic spray is as effective as conventional approaches in the management of AUGIB.