Cargando…

Efficacy of Hemospray in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Recently, amongst other hemostatic modalities, Hemospray (TC-325) has emerged as an effective method for managing patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of Hemospray in patients with n...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Aziz, Muhammad, Weissman, Simcha, Mehta, Tej I., Hassan, Shafae, Khan, Zubair, Fatima, Rawish, Tsirlin, Yuriy, Hassan, Ammar, Sciarra, Michael, Nawras, Ali, Rastogi, Amit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7049242/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32127735
http://dx.doi.org/10.20524/aog.2020.0448
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Recently, amongst other hemostatic modalities, Hemospray (TC-325) has emerged as an effective method for managing patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of Hemospray in patients with non-variceal upper GIB. METHODS: Our primary outcomes were clinical and technical success; secondary outcomes were aggregate rebleeding, early rebleeding, delayed rebleeding, refractory bleeding, mortality, and treatment failure. A meta-analysis of proportions was conducted for all reported primary and secondary outcomes. A relative risk meta-analysis was conducted for studies reporting direct comparisons between Hemospray and other hemostatic measures. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies with 1280 patients were included in the final analysis. Technical success of Hemospray was seen in 97% of cases (95% confidence interval [CI] 94-98%, I(2)=52.89%) and a significant trend towards increasing technical success was seen during publication years 2011-2019. Clinical success of Hemospray was seen in 91% of cases (95%CI 88-94%, I(2)=47.72%), compared to 87% (95%CI 75-94%, I(2)=0.00%) for other hemostatic measures. The secondary outcomes of aggregate rebleeding, early rebleeding, delayed rebleeding, refractory rebleeding, mortality and treatment failure following the use of Hemospray were seen in 27%, 20%, 9%, 8%, 8%, and 31% of cases, respectively. CONCLUSION: Hemospray is safe, effective and non-inferior to traditional hemostatic measures for the management of non-variceal upper GIB, and can thus be used as an alternative option.