The use of hemostatic spray as an adjunct to the conventional hemostatic measures in high-risk nonvariceal upper GI bleeding (with video)

Rohit Sinha, Khalida A Lockman, Nicholas I Church, John N Plevris, Peter C Hayes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleed (NVUGIB) can be challenging. Hemospray (Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC, USA is a novel endoscopic hemostatic agent for NVUGIB. Its efficacy in attaining hemostasis in NVUGIB is promising, particularly with respect to technically difficult lesions. However, most of the currently available data are focused on its application as monotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate its efficacy as a second agent to adrenaline, or as an addition to the combination of adrenaline with either clips or a thermal device in NVUGIB.

METHODS: Consecutive patients with Forrest 1a and 1b ulcer treated with hemostatic spray as an adjunct to conventional endoscopic hemostatic measures between July 2013 and June 2015 were included in this retrospective analysis. The endpoints were initial hemostasis, 7-day rebleeding, 30-day rebleeding, all cause, and GI-related 30-day mortality.

RESULTS: A total of 20 (median age 75 years, 50% men, 60% Forrest 1a ulcer) were treated with hemostatic spray as a second agent to adrenaline, or as an adjunct to the combination of adrenaline with either clips or a thermal device. Hemostatic spray was used as a second agent to adrenaline in 40% and as a third agent to combined dual therapy in 60%. Initial hemostasis was attained in 95% with an overall rebleeding rate at 7-day of 16%. There was no difference between 7-day and 30-day rebleeding rate. The combination of hemostatic spray and adrenaline resulted in 100% initial hemostasis and 25% 7-day rebleeding. Similarly, initial hemostasis was achieved in 92% with 9% rebleeding rate when hemostatic spray was used as the third agent to 2 of the conventional measures. All-cause mortality was 15% with one GI-related death (3%).

CONCLUSION: In our single-center retrospective analysis, hemostatic spray appears promising as an adjunct to conventional methods for NVUGIB, although prospective controlled trials are needed to confirm.

Original languageEnglish
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Early online date21 Apr 2016
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 21 Apr 2016

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The use of hemostatic spray as an adjunct to the conventional hemostatic measures in high-risk nonvariceal upper GI bleeding (with video)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this