Comparison of Hemospray(®) and Endoclot(™) for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common indication for endoscopy. For refractory cases, hemostatic powders (HP) represent “touch-free” agents. AIM: To analyze short term (ST-within 72 h-) and long-term (LT-within 30 d-) success for achieving hemostasis with HP and to directly compare...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vitali, Francesco, Naegel, Andreas, Atreya, Raja, Zopf, Steffen, Neufert, Clemens, Siebler, Juergen, Neurath, Markus F, Rath, Timo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6452236/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30983819
http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i13.1592
_version_ 1783409272578637824
author Vitali, Francesco
Naegel, Andreas
Atreya, Raja
Zopf, Steffen
Neufert, Clemens
Siebler, Juergen
Neurath, Markus F
Rath, Timo
author_facet Vitali, Francesco
Naegel, Andreas
Atreya, Raja
Zopf, Steffen
Neufert, Clemens
Siebler, Juergen
Neurath, Markus F
Rath, Timo
author_sort Vitali, Francesco
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common indication for endoscopy. For refractory cases, hemostatic powders (HP) represent “touch-free” agents. AIM: To analyze short term (ST-within 72 h-) and long-term (LT-within 30 d-) success for achieving hemostasis with HP and to directly compare the two agents Hemospray (HS) and Endoclot (EC). METHODS: HP was applied in 154 consecutive patients (mean age 67 years) with GI bleeding. Patients were followed up for 1 mo (mean follow-up: 3.2 mo). RESULTS: Majority of applications were in upper GI tract (89%) with following bleeding sources: peptic ulcer disease (35%), esophageal varices (7%), tumor bleeding (11.7%), reflux esophagitis (8.7%), diffuse bleeding and erosions (15.3%). Overall ST success was achieved in 125 patients (81%) and LT success in 81 patients (67%). Re-bleeding occurred in 27% of all patients. In 72 patients (47%), HP was applied as a salvage hemostatic therapy, here ST and LT success were 81% and 64%, with re-bleeding in 32%. As a primary hemostatic therapy, ST and LT success were 82% and 69%, with re-bleeding occurring in 22%. HS was more frequently applied for upper GI bleeding (P = 0.04) CONCLUSION: Both HP allow for effective hemostasis with no differences in ST, LT success and re-bleeding.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6452236
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64522362019-04-12 Comparison of Hemospray(®) and Endoclot(™) for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding Vitali, Francesco Naegel, Andreas Atreya, Raja Zopf, Steffen Neufert, Clemens Siebler, Juergen Neurath, Markus F Rath, Timo World J Gastroenterol Retrospective Cohort Study BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common indication for endoscopy. For refractory cases, hemostatic powders (HP) represent “touch-free” agents. AIM: To analyze short term (ST-within 72 h-) and long-term (LT-within 30 d-) success for achieving hemostasis with HP and to directly compare the two agents Hemospray (HS) and Endoclot (EC). METHODS: HP was applied in 154 consecutive patients (mean age 67 years) with GI bleeding. Patients were followed up for 1 mo (mean follow-up: 3.2 mo). RESULTS: Majority of applications were in upper GI tract (89%) with following bleeding sources: peptic ulcer disease (35%), esophageal varices (7%), tumor bleeding (11.7%), reflux esophagitis (8.7%), diffuse bleeding and erosions (15.3%). Overall ST success was achieved in 125 patients (81%) and LT success in 81 patients (67%). Re-bleeding occurred in 27% of all patients. In 72 patients (47%), HP was applied as a salvage hemostatic therapy, here ST and LT success were 81% and 64%, with re-bleeding in 32%. As a primary hemostatic therapy, ST and LT success were 82% and 69%, with re-bleeding occurring in 22%. HS was more frequently applied for upper GI bleeding (P = 0.04) CONCLUSION: Both HP allow for effective hemostasis with no differences in ST, LT success and re-bleeding. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2019-04-07 2019-04-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6452236/ /pubmed/30983819 http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i13.1592 Text en ©The Author(s) 2019. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.
spellingShingle Retrospective Cohort Study
Vitali, Francesco
Naegel, Andreas
Atreya, Raja
Zopf, Steffen
Neufert, Clemens
Siebler, Juergen
Neurath, Markus F
Rath, Timo
Comparison of Hemospray(®) and Endoclot(™) for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding
title Comparison of Hemospray(®) and Endoclot(™) for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding
title_full Comparison of Hemospray(®) and Endoclot(™) for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding
title_fullStr Comparison of Hemospray(®) and Endoclot(™) for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Hemospray(®) and Endoclot(™) for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding
title_short Comparison of Hemospray(®) and Endoclot(™) for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding
title_sort comparison of hemospray(®) and endoclot(™) for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding
topic Retrospective Cohort Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6452236/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30983819
http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i13.1592
work_keys_str_mv AT vitalifrancesco comparisonofhemosprayandendoclotforthetreatmentofgastrointestinalbleeding
AT naegelandreas comparisonofhemosprayandendoclotforthetreatmentofgastrointestinalbleeding
AT atreyaraja comparisonofhemosprayandendoclotforthetreatmentofgastrointestinalbleeding
AT zopfsteffen comparisonofhemosprayandendoclotforthetreatmentofgastrointestinalbleeding
AT neufertclemens comparisonofhemosprayandendoclotforthetreatmentofgastrointestinalbleeding
AT sieblerjuergen comparisonofhemosprayandendoclotforthetreatmentofgastrointestinalbleeding
AT neurathmarkusf comparisonofhemosprayandendoclotforthetreatmentofgastrointestinalbleeding
AT rathtimo comparisonofhemosprayandendoclotforthetreatmentofgastrointestinalbleeding