| Literature DB >> 36238531 |
Shirley X Jiang1, Daljeet Chahal2, Nabil Ali-Mohamad3,4, Christian Kastrup3,5, Fergal Donnellan6.
Abstract
Background and study aims Hemostatic powders are increasingly used to address limitations in conventional endoscopic techniques for gastrointestinal bleeding. Various agents exist with different compositions, characteristics, efficacy, and adverse events (AEs). We sought to review existing hemostatic powders, from preclinical to established agents. Methods A literature review on hemostatic powders for gastrointestinal bleeding was undertaken through a MEDLINE search from 2000-2021 and hand searching of articles. Relevant literature was critically appraised and reviewed for mechanism of action, hemostasis and rebleeding rate, factors associated with hemostatic failure, and AEs. Results The most established agents are TC-325 (Hemospray), EndoClot, and Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS). These agents have been successfully applied to a variety of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding etiologies, in the form of primary, combination, salvage, and bridging therapy. Few AEs have been reported, including visceral perforation, venous embolism, and self-limited abdominal pain. Newer agents include CEGP-003 and UI-EWD, which have shown results similar to those for the older agents in initial clinical studies. All aforementioned powders have high immediate hemostasis rates, particularly in scenarios not amenable to conventional endoscopic methods, but are limited by significant rates of rebleeding. Other treatments include TDM-621 (PuraStat) consisting of a liquid hemostatic agent newly applied to endoscopy and self-propelling thrombin powder (CounterFlow Powder), a preclinical but promising agent. Conclusions Rapid development of hemostatic powders and growing clinical expertise has established these agents as a valuable strategy in gastrointestinal bleeding. Further research will continue to refine the efficacy and applicability of these agents. 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/).Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36238531 PMCID: PMC9552790 DOI: 10.1055/a-1836-8962
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Summary of hemostatic powders for endoscopic application.
| TC-325 (Hemospray) | EndoClot | ABS | ui-EWD (NexPowder) | CEGP-003 | |
| Manufacturer | Cook Medical Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA | EndoClot Plus Santa Clara, California, USA | Ankaferd Health Products Istanbul, Turkey | Next Biomedical Incheon, South Korea | CGBio Seong-Nam, South Korea |
| Material | Inert mineral powder | Polysaccharides from plant starch | Five herbal extracts | Natural polymer | Natural polymer with epidermal growth factor |
| Mechanism of action | Forms adhesive seal over bleeding site, concentrates platelets and coagulation factors | Forms gelled matrix to seal bleeding site, causes platelet/coagulation factor concentration from rapid absorption of water, and activation of fibroblasts | Forms encapsulated protein matrix, leading to erythrocyte aggregation | Forms mucoadhesive hydrogel to create mechanical barrier on bleeding site | Forms adhesive gel to create mechanical barrier and promote local wound healing pathways |
| Reported clinical uses | Peptic ulcer disease, malignant GIB, varices, post-intervention, diverticular disease, portal hypertensive gastropathy/colopathy | Peptic ulcer disease, malignant GIB, varices, post-banding ulcers, post-EMR/ESD, radiation injury, lower GI bleeding | Peptic ulcer disease, malignant GIB, varices, GAVE, post-polypectomy, post-sphincterotomy, vascular lesion, radiation colitis, diverticular bleeding | Peptic ulcer, post-intervention, malignant GIB (carcinoma, GIST, lymphoma). | Peptic ulcer, post-EMR, post-ESD |
GIB, gastrointestinal bleeding; EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; GAVE, gastric antral vascular ectasia; GIST, gastrointestinal stromal tumor.
Clinical studies with sample size greater than 10.
| Study | Country | Design | Intervention | Application | % Forrest Ia/b | Indication | Outcomes | ||
| Sung 2011 | Hong Kong | PC, N = 20 | TC-325 | PUD | 1a: 5 %, 1b: 95 % | Primary | I: 95 % | R: 0 % (30 day) | |
| Holster 2013 | Netherlands | PC, N = 16 | TC-325 | UGIB | 1a: 25 %, 1b: 25 % | Primary (50 %), rescue (31 %) | I: 81 % | R: 31.3 % (7 day) | |
| Leblanc 2013 | France | CS, N = 17 | TC-325 | UGIB, post-procedure | NR | Primary (66.7 %), rescue | I: 100 % | R: 11.7 % (7 day) | |
| Smith 2014 | Europe | RC, N = 63 | TC-325 | UGIB | 1a: 17 %, 1b: 25 % | Primary, combination | I: 76–85 % | R: 15 % (7 day) | |
| Sulz 2014 | Switzerland | CS, N = 16 | TC-325 | UGIB, LGIB | NR | Primary, rescue | I: 94 % | R: 12.5 % (7 day) | |
| Yau 2014 | Canada | RC, N = 19 | TC-325 | UGIB | 1a: 26 %, 1b: 11 % | Primary, rescue | I: 93 % | R: 38.9 % (7 day) | |
| Chen 2015 | Canada | RC, N = 60 | TC-325 | UGIB, LGIB | NR | Primary, rescue | I: 99 % | R: 14.3 % (30 day) | |
| Haddara 2016 | France | PC, N = 202 | TC-325 | UGIB | 1a: 7 %, 1b: 21 % | Primary, rescue | I: 92–100 % | R: 0–66.7 % (30 day) | |
| Giles 2016 | New Zealand | CS, N = 36 | TC-325 | UGIB | NR | Primary, rescue | I: 100 % | R: 15 % (7 day) | |
| Hagel 2017 | Germany | RC, N = 25 | TC-325 | UGIB, LGIB | NR | Primary, rescue | I: 96 % | R: 37 % (30 day) | |
| Cahyadi 2017 | Germany | RC, N = 52 | TC-325 | UGIB | 1a: 0 %, 1b: 39 % | Primary (44.2 %), rescue | I: 98 % | R: 44–52 % (7 day) | |
| Arena 2017 | Italy | RC, N = 15 | TC-325 | Malignant GIB | NR | Primary | I: 93 % | R: 21 % (6 day) | |
| Pittayanon 2018 | Canada, Thailand | RC, N = 99 | TC-325 | Malignant GIB | 1a: NR, 1b: 94 % | Primary (88 %), rescue (13 %) | I: 98 % | R 27 % (30 day) | |
| Ramírez-Polo 2019 | Mexico | RC, N = 81 | TC-325 | UGIB, LGIB | NR | Primary (54 %), combination | I: 99 % | R: 20 % (5 day) | |
| Hookey 2019 | Canada | PC, N = 50 | TC-325 | LGIB | NR | Primary, combination, rescue | I: 98 % | R: 10 % (30 day) | |
| Rodriguez De Santiago 2019 | Spain | RC, N = 261 | TC-325 | UGIB | 1a: 25 %, 1b: 64 % | Primary, rescue (73.2 %) | I: 94 % | R: 27.4 % (30 day) | |
| Ng 2019 | Singapore | CS, N = 10 | TC-325 | Diverticular bleed | NR | Primary | I: 100 % | R: 0 % (3 month) | |
| Alzoubaidi 2020 | UK, France, Germany | PC, N = 314 | TC-325 | UGIB, LGIB | 1a: 17 %, 1b: 60 % | Primary (38 %), combination (45 %), rescue (17.5 %) | I:89.5 % | R: 10.3 % (3 day) | |
| Chahal 2020 | Canada | RC, N = 86 | TC-325 | UGIB, LGIB | 1a: 14 %, 1b: 53 % | Primary, combination | I: 88 % | R: 33.7 % (30 day) | |
| Hussein 2020 | UK, US, France, Germany | PC, N = 202 | TC-325 | PUD | 1a: 19 %, 1b: 58 % | Primary, combination, rescue | I: 88 % | R:17 % (30 day) | |
| Lau 2020 | China, Hong Kong | RCT, N = 224 | TC-325, CHT | UGIB | NR | Primary | I: 97 % | R: 8 % (30 day) | |
| Hussein 2021 | UK, US, France, Germany, Spain | PC, N = 105 | TC-325 | Malignant UGIB | NR | Primary, rescue, combination | I: 97 % | R: 15 % (30 day) | |
| Becq 2021 | France | RC, N = 152 | TC-325 | Urgent GIB | NR | Primary, rescue | I: 79 % | R: 41 % | |
| Facciorusso 2021 | Italy | CR, N = 65 | TC-325 | LGIB | NR | Primary, combination, rescue | I: 100 % | R: 9 % (30 day) | |
| Sinha 2016 | UK | RC, N = 20 | TC-325, epinephrine | UGIB | 1a: 60 %, 1b: 40 % | Rescue, combination | I: 95 % | R: 9–25 % (7 day) | |
| Kwek 2017 | Singapore | PC, N = 10 | TC-325, CHT | PUD | 1a: 10 %, 1b: 40 % | Primary | I: 90 % | R: 33.3 % (4 week) | |
| Vitali 2019 | Germany | PC, N = 154 | TC-325 (n = 111), EndoClot (n = 32) | UGIB, LGIB | 1a: 11 %, 1b: 66 % | Primary Rescue (47 %) | TC-325 | I: 83 % | R: 24 % |
| EndoClot | I: 81 % | R: 25 % | |||||||
| Ibrahim 2019 | Belgium, Egypt | RCT, N = 43 | TC-325, Pharmacologic | Variceal bleed | NR | Combination | I: 88 % | R: 12 % (12 hour) | |
| Baracat 2020 | Brazil | RCT, N = 19 | TC-325 with epinephrine, CHT | UGIB | 1a: 16 %, 1b: 84 % | Combination | I: 100 % | R: 28 % (7 day) | |
| Chen 2020 | Canada | RCT, N = 10 | TC-325, CHT | UGIB, LGIB | NR | Primary, rescue | I: 90 % | R: 20 % (180 day) | |
| Paoluzi 2021 | Italy | PC, N = 43 | TC-325 (n = 33), EndoClot (n = 10), CHT (n = 65) | UGIB, LGIB | 1a: 7 %, 1b: 37 % | Primary, rescue | I: 86–100 % | R: 20–50 % (30 day) *PUD only | |
| Beg 2015 | UK | RC, N = 21 | EndoClot, CHT | UGIB | 1a: 24 %, 1b: 76 % | Rescue | I: 100 % | R: 4.8 % | |
| Park 2018 | Korea | CC, N = 30 | EndoClot, CHT | UGIB | 1a: 17 %, 1b: 70 % | Primary, combination | I: 97 % | R: 3.3 % (30 day) | |
| Huang 2014 | China | PC, N = 82 | EndoClot | Post-EMR | NR | Prophylaxis, primary | I: 90 % | R: 7 % (3 day) | |
| Prei 2016 | Germany | PC, N = 70 | EndoClot | UGIB, LGIB | 1a: 1 %, 1b: 66 % | Primary (80 %), rescue | I: 83 % | R: 11 % (3 day) | |
| Kim 2018 | Korea | RC, N = 12 | EndoClot | Malignant GIB | 1a: 0 %, 1b: 100 % | Primary, rescue (41.6 %) | I: 100 % | R: 16 % (3–5 day) | |
| Hahn 2018 | Korea | PC, N = 33 | EndoClot | Post-ESD | NR | Prophylaxis | I: 100 % | R: 9 % | |
| Hagel 2020 | Germany | RC, N = 43 | EndoClot | UGIB | 1a/b: 18.6 % | Primary, rescue, prophylaxis | I: 100 % | R: 24 % (1 day) | |
| Kurt 2010 | Turkey | CS, N = 10 | ABS | Malignant GIB | NR | Primary | I: 100 % | R: 0 % (7–48 day) | |
| Kurt 2010 | Turkey | RC, N = 26 | ABS | UGIB, LGIB | NR | Primary, combination | I: 100 % | R: NR | |
| Karaman 2012 | Turkey | PC, N = 30 | ABS | UGIB | NR | Primary, combination | I: 87 % | R: 0 % (7 day) | |
| Gungor 2012 | Turkey | PC, N = 26 | ABS | UGIB | 1a: 15 %, 1b: 85 % | Primary, combination | I: 73 % | R: 16–33 % (NR) | |
| Bang 2018 | Korea | RCT, N = 35 | CEGP-003, CHT | UGIB | 1a: 0 %, 1b: 86 % | Primary | I: 100 % | R: 9 % (3 day) | |
| Park 2019 | Korea | PC, N = 17 | UI-EWD | UGIB | 1a: 12 %, 1b: 88 % | Rescue | 1: 94 % | R: 19 % (30 day) | |
| Park 2019 | Korea | RC, N = 56 | UI-EWD | UGIB | 1a: 0 %, 1b: 64 % | Primary | I: 96 % | R: 4 % (7 day) | |
| Shin 2021 | Korea | RC, N = 41 | UI-EWD | Malignant GIB | 1a: 7 %, 1b: 93 % | Primary, rescue | I: 100 % | R: 26 % (28 day) | |
PC, prospective cohort; RC, retrospective cohort; CS, case series; RCT, randomized controlled trial; TC-325, Hemospray; ABS, Ankaferd Blood Stopper; UI-EWD, NexPowder; CHB, conventional hemostatic treatment (mechanical, thermal, chemical therapy); UGIB/LGIB, upper/lower gastrointestinal bleeding; PUD, peptic ulcer disease; I, immediate hemostasis rate; R, recurrent bleeding rate.
Factors associated with recurrent bleeding and failure of TC-325 (Hemospray).
| Category | Factor |
| Clinical Presentation |
Syncope
|
| Investigations |
Creatinine ≥ 15 mg/L
|
| Medications |
Vasoactive drugs
|
| Endoscopic Findings |
Spurting vessel (Forrest class Ia)
|
| Management |
Use as salvage therapy
|
Adverse events and technical issues.
| Study, year | Intervention(s) | Case(s) | N (%) | Adverse events |
| Smith 2014 | TC-325 | Severe proximal portal hypertensive gastropathy | 1/4 (25 %) | Perforated viscus following use of TC-325 which led to hemostasis, not candidate for surgery and died of sepsis. |
| Yau 2014 | TC-325 | UGIB | 1/19 (5.3 %) | Abdominal distension and hemoperitoneum on paracentesis hours post-TC-325, suspected perforation. |
| UGIB, in patient admitted with tibial fracture | 1/19 (5.3 %) | New onset splenic infarct on abdominal computed tomography scan after TC-325 use. | ||
| Smith 2014 | TC-325 | UGIB | 2/63 (3 %) | Endoscope transiently adherent to esophageal mucosa when TC-325 was sprayed in retroflexion. |
| Hagel 2017 | TC-325 | Diffuse bleeding in gastric wall | 1/27 (3.7 %) | Immediate perforation after Hemospray administration, managed with laparotomy. |
| Pittayanon 2018 | TC-325 | Malignant GIB | 1/88 (11.4 %) | Cardiac arrest of unclear cause as TC-325 was used, subsequent death 4 days later. |
| Rodriguez de Santiago 2019 | TC-325 | Esophageal ulcer secondary to GI graft vs host disease | 1/261 (0.4 %) | Esophageal perforation after TC-325 use. |
| Unknown GIB in woman with factor II prothrombotic mutation | 1/261 (0.4 %) | Pulmonary thromboembolism 48 hours after TC-325 use. | ||
| Vitali 2019 | TC-325 | Unknown GIB | 2/154 (1.3 %) | Perforation after TC-325 use. |
| Becq 2021 | TC-325 | Deep peptic ulcer | 1/152 (0.7 %) | Perforation after TC-325 use. |
| Beyazit 2013 | ABS | Gastroduodenal amyloidosis | Case report | Perforation of duodenum after ABS application. |
| Technical Issues | ||||
| Hagel 2020 | EndoClot | UGIB | 1/43 (2.3 %) | Occlusion of spray catheter. |
| Beg 2015 | EndoClot | UGIB | 2/21 (9.5 %) | Occlusion of spray catheter. |
| Smith 2014 | TC-325 | UGIB | 3/64 (4.8 %) | Occlusion of application catheter. |
| 1/64 (1.6 %) | Occlusion of endoscope instrument channel. | |||
| 1/64 (1.6 %) | Malfunction of the CO 2 propellant cartridge. | |||
| Rodriguez de Santiago 2019 | TC-325 | GIB | 5/261 (1.9 %) | Occlusion of spray catheter. |
| 1/261 (0.4 %) | Occlusion of endoscope instrument channel. | |||
| Park 2019 | UI-EWD | UGIB | 2/56 (3.6 %) | Occlusion of spray catheter. |
UGIB, upper gastrointestinal bleeding; GIB, gastrointestinal bleeding.