Advancements in hemostatic strategies for managing upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A comprehensive review.

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage presents a substantial clinical challenge. Initial management typically involves resuscitation and endoscopy within 24 h, although the benefit of very early endoscopy (< 12 h) for high-risk patients is debated. Treatment goals include stopping acute bleeding, preventing rebleeding, and using a multimodal approach encompassing endoscopic, pharmacological, angiographic, and surgical methods. Pharmacological agents such as vasopressin, prostaglandins, and proton pump inhibitors are effective, but the increase in antithrombotic use has increased GI bleeding morbidity. Endoscopic hemostasis, particularly for nonvariceal bleeding, employs techniques such as electrocoagulation and heater probes, with concerns over tissue injury from monopolar electrocoagulation. Novel methods such as Hemospray and Endoclot show promise in creating mechanical tamponades but have limitations. Currently, the first-line therapy includes thermal probes and hemoclips, with over-the-scope clips emerging for larger ulcer bleeding. The gold probe, combining bipolar electrocoagulation and injection, offers targeted coagulation but has faced device-related issues. Future advancements involve combining techniques and improving endoscopic imaging, with studies exploring combined approaches showing promise. Ongoing research is crucial for developing standardized and effective hemorrhage management strategies.

Risk factors and predictive nomograms for bedside emergency endoscopic treatment following endotracheal intubation in cirrhotic patients with esophagogastric variceal bleeding.

Data on emergency endoscopic treatment following endotracheal intubation in patients with esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB) remain limited. This retrospective study aimed to explore the efficacy and risk factors of bedside emergency endoscopic treatment following endotracheal intubation in severe EGVB patients admitted in Intensive Care Unit. A total of 165 EGVB patients were enrolled and allocated to training and validation sets in a randomly stratified manner. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify independent risk factors to construct nomograms for predicting the prognosis related to endoscopic hemostasis failure rate and 6-week mortality. In result, white blood cell counts (p = 0.03), Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score (p = 0.001) and comorbid shock (p = 0.005) were selected as independent clinical predictors of endoscopic hemostasis failure. High CTP score (p = 0.003) and the presence of gastric varices (p = 0.009) were related to early rebleeding after emergency endoscopic treatment. Furthermore, the 6-week mortality was significantly associated with MELD scores (p = 0.002), the presence of hepatic encephalopathy (p = 0.045) and postoperative rebleeding (p < 0.001). Finally, we developed practical nomograms to discern the risk of the emergency endoscopic hemostasis failure and 6-week mortality for EGVB patients. In conclusion, our study may help identify severe EGVB patients with higher hemostasis failure rate or 6-week mortality for earlier implementation of salvage treatments.

Usefulness of endoscopic endonasal underwater surgery using a combination of coblation and a lens-cleaning system for hemostasis in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.

Hemostatic procedures for controlling nasal bleeding in refractory diseases such as hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) can be challenging. In this report, we present a novel technique for underwater endoscopic endonasal hemostatic surgery, which was performed on a 69-year-old man with HHT. The patient had been experiencing frequent episodes of nasal bleeding and had many telangiectasias in the nasal cavity, which were the cause of the bleeding. These telangiectasias were effectively treated using a coblation device in combination with an endoscope lens-cleaning system that supplied saline to create stable underwater conditions. There are several advantages to this technique, including provision of a stable and clear endoscopic field of view, allowing for better visualization of the surgical site. This makes it easier to identify bleeding points and ensure accurate hemostasis. Additionally, the hydrostatic pressure created by the underwater environment helps to reduce bleeding during the procedure. However, it is important to take careful precautions to prevent water from entering the lower airway. With this precautionary measure, this technique is particularly useful in managing bleeding in patients with HHT.

Risk factors for rebleeding and mortality following prophylactic transarterial embolization for patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To investigate factors associated with risk for rebleeding and 30-day mortality following prophylactic transarterial embolization in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records and included all patients who had undergone prophylactic embolization of the gastroduodenal artery at Rigshospitalet, Denmark, following an endoscopy-verified and treated peptic Sulcer bleeding, from 2016 to 2021. Data were collected from electronic health records and imaging from the embolization procedures. Primary outcomes were rebleeding and 30-day mortality. We performed logistical regression analyses for both outcomes with possible risk factors. Risk factors included: active bleeding; visible hemoclips; Rockall-score; anatomical variants; standardized embolization procedure; and number of endoscopies prior to embolization. RESULTS: We included 176 patients. Rebleeding occurred in 25% following embolization and 30-day mortality was 15%. Not undergoing a standardized embolization procedure increased the odds of both rebleeding (odds ratio 3.029, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.395-6.579) and 30-day overall mortality by 3.262 (1.252-8.497). More than one endoscopy was associated with increased odds of rebleeding (odds ratio 2.369, 95% CI 1.088-5.158). High Rockall-score increased the odds of 30-day mortality (odds ratio 2.587, 95% CI 1.243-5.386). Active bleeding, visible hemoclips, and anatomical variants did not affect risk of rebleeding or 30-day mortality. Reasons for deviation from standard embolization procedure were anatomical variations, targeted treatment without embolizing the gastroduodenal artery, and technical failure. CONCLUSIONS: Deviation from the standard embolization procedure increased the risk of rebleeding and 30-day mortality, more than one endoscopy prior to embolization was associated with higher odds of rebleeding, and a high Rockall-score increased the risk of 30-day mortality. We suggest that patients with these risk factors are monitored closely following embolization. Early detection of rebleeding may allow for proper and early re-intervention.

Surgical Management of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

The use of surgery in managing upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding has rapidly diminished secondary to advances in our understanding of the pathologies that underlie upper GI bleeding, pharmaceutical treatments for peptic ulcer disease, and endoscopic procedures used to gain hemostasis. A surgeon must work collaboratively with gastroenterologist and interventional radiologist to determine when, and what kind of, surgery is appropriate for the patient with upper GI bleeding.

A Novel Hemostatic Peptide Solution for Common Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding Diseases: First Case Series Study on the Treatment Results of Endoscopic Hemostasis by Nonexpert Endoscopists.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the hemostatic effect and safety of a hemostatic peptide solution for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding requiring emergency endoscopy. METHODS: We retrospectively examined the patient backgrounds, hemostatic results, and procedural safety in patients who were treated with a hemostatic peptide solution for hemostasis during emergency endoscopies for gastrointestinal bleeding. All hemostatic procedures were performed by nonexpert physicians with less than 10 years of endoscopic experience. All of the cases were treated at a single institution over the months from January 2022 to January 2023. RESULTS: Twenty-six consecutive patients (17 males and 9 females) with a median age of 74 (45-95) years were included. Their conditions requiring emergency endoscopy were melena in 8 patients, hematochezia in 2, hematemesis in 8, anemia in 6, and bleeding during esophagogastroduodenoscopy in 2. The sites of bleeding were the esophagus in 3 patients, the stomach in 17, the duodenum in 3, the small intestine in 2, and the colon in 1. Hemostasis was obtained with another hemostasis device used in conjunction with the hemostatic peptide solution in 13 cases and with the hemostatic peptide solution alone in 13 cases. The hemostasis success rate was 100%, with no complications. Rebleeding occurred within 1 week in 4 cases. CONCLUSION: Hemostasis with the hemostatic peptide solution was safe and provided a temporary high hemostatic effect in emergency gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Characteristics, outcomes, and risk factors of surgery for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: nationwide cohort study of 10,342 hematochezia cases.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence on the surgical rate, indication, procedure, risk factors, mortality, and postoperative rebleeding for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB) is limited. METHODS: We constructed a retrospective cohort of 10,342 patients admitted for acute hematochezia at 49 hospitals (CODE BLUE J-Study) and evaluated clinical data on the surgeries performed. RESULTS: Surgery was performed in 1.3% (136/10342) of the cohort with high rates of colonoscopy (87.7%) and endoscopic hemostasis (26.7%). Indications for surgery included colonic diverticular bleeding (24%), colorectal cancer (22%), and small bowel bleeding (16%). Sixty-four percent of surgeries were for hemostasis for severe refractory bleeding. Postoperative rebleeding rates were 22% in patients with presumptive or obscure preoperative identification of the bleeding source and 12% in those with definitive identification. Thirty-day mortality rates were 1.5% and 0.8% in patients with and without surgery, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that surgery-related risk factors were transfusion need ≥ 6 units (P < 0.001), in-hospital rebleeding (P < 0.001), small bowel bleeding (P < 0.001), colorectal cancer (P < 0.001), and hemorrhoids (P < 0.001). Endoscopic hemostasis was negatively associated with surgery (P = 0.003). For small bowel bleeding, the surgery rate was significantly lower in patients with endoscopic hemostasis as 2% compared to 12% without endoscopic hemostasis. CONCLUSIONS: Our cohort study elucidated the outcomes and risks of the surgery. Extensive exploration including the small bowel to identify the source of bleeding and endoscopic hemostasis may reduce unnecessary surgery and improve the management of ALGIB.

Hemostatic Spray TC-325 (Hemospray®) and Unexpected Esophageal Entrapment of Gastroscope With Airway Management Considerations: A Case Report.

Bleeding from the upper gastrointestinal tract is responsible for approximately 2% of all hospital admissions annually, with an up to 17% mortality rate. Therapeutic endoscopic interventions are often indicated for establishing hemostasis. These interventions include but are not limited to thermal coagulation with cautery, mechanical methods using band ligation or hemostatic clips, and hemostatic spray. Anesthesia providers are frequently involved in providing sedation for those endoscopic procedures. In 2018, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved a hemostatic spray, Hemospray® TC-325 (Cook Medical, Winston- Salem, NC, USA) for controlling nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The inorganic, mineral-based powder forms a mechanical tamponade by absorbing water and attracting clotting factors to the bleeding site. Adverse events associated with using the product are reported as rare but have included perforation and difficulty in removing the gastroscope. This case presents unexpected entrapment of the gastroscope in a patient's esophagus after the bleeding site was treated with Hemospray. Potential difficulties with airway management strategies are discussed.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided injection of cyanoacrylate in the treatment of gastroesophageal varices type 1: a single-center randomized study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: First, it has been demonstrated that endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided cyanoacrylate (CYA) injection (EUS-CYA) has greater efficacy than direct endoscopic injection of cyanoacrylate (DEI-CYA) for treating type 1-isolated gastric varices. However, it is necessary to conduct further studies to determine whether EUS has any advantage over the current guidelines for treating gastroesophageal varices type 1 (GOV1). Second, liver function is an important prognostic factor in patients with liver cirrhosis. Therefore, we evaluated the liver function of patients treated with EUS-CYA. METHODS: In a single-center study, a prospective cohort from February 2021 to September 2022 involving 89 patients with cirrhosis with GOV1 were assigned to undergo EUS-CYA (n = 45) or DEI-CYA (n = 44). The success rate of CYA injection, the rate of overall rebleeding, the rate of reintervention, the complications during the follow-up period, and the liver function were compared. RESULTS: In both groups, 100% of the operations were successful. The follow-up time of the two groups was 290 (153-398) days and 267 (177-416) days, respectively. In the EUS group, the perforating veins had an average diameter of 7.0 ± 2.7 mm, and they had a 100% occlusion rate. A statistically significant difference was found between the two groups regarding the number of sessions needed to eradicate GV (p = 0.005, pairwise comparisons were conducted using the Bonferroni correction method.), the late rebleeding rate after EUS-CYA [n = 3 (6.7%) vs n = 10 (22.7%); p = 0.032], and the incidence of postinjection ulcers [n = 4 (8.9%) vs n = 12 (27.3); p = 0.023)]. Following EUS or DEI-CYA treatment, the patient's liver function did not show any significant deterioration or decline. CONCLUSION: EUS-CYA has a higher eradication success rate and fewer complications, recurrences, and rebleeding episodes than DEI-CYA used for GOV1 treatment. In addition, EUS-CYA did not impair liver function.

Factors influencing outcome of angiographic embolization for gastroduodenal hemorrhage related to peptic ulceration.

PURPOSE: Long-term outcome and prognostic factors of transcatheter embolization for gastroduodenal peptic ulcer bleeding are unknown. This study was conducted to evaluate the clinical outcome and factors associated with early recurrent bleeding and 30-day mortality of transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) for severe, upper gastroduodenal hemorrhage associated with peptic ulcer and refractory to medical and endoscopic therapy. METHODS: A monocenter, retrospective study from 2005 to 2020 including 76 consecutive patients who underwent TAE as first-line therapy for bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers refractory to endoscopic therapy. Patient demographics, endoscopy findings, co-morbidities and interventional procedure findings were recorded. The outcome measures were technical and clinical success, procedure related complications, recurrent bleeding, length of hospital stay, 30-day mortality and overall survival. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 96% and the clinical success rate was 65,8%. The rebleeding and 30-day mortality rate were 30,7% and 22,4% respectively. A higher international normalized ratio (INR) was a statistically significant risk factor for 30-day mortality (OR, 7.15; 95% CI, 1.67-30.70; p = 0.008). The mean overall survival was 3.76 years (1.16---5.09; 95% CI); a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and a lower Rockall score were significantly associated with a longer overall survival (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.14-1.35; p = 0.0001; HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59; p = 0.003) respectively. Early rebleeding was significantly associated with a lower overall survival (HR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.57-4.71; p = 0.0004). CONCLUSION: A higher INR was a significant risk factor with a higher 30-day mortality. A lower CCI, a lower Rockall score and the absence of early rebleeding were significantly associated with a longer overall survival.

Hemostatic Powder vs Standard Endoscopic Treatment for Gastrointestinal Tumor Bleeding: A Multicenter Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Current guidelines vary as to their recommendations addressing the role of hemostatic powders when managing patients with malignant gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding because these are based on very-low- to low-quality evidence, in large part due to a paucity of randomized trial data. METHODS: This was a patient- and outcome assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Patients presenting with active bleeding from an upper or lower GI lesion suspected to be malignant at index endoscopy between June 2019 and January 2022 were randomly allocated to receive either TC-325 alone or standard endoscopic treatment (SET). The primary outcome was 30-day rebleeding, and secondary objectives included immediate hemostasis and other clinically relevant endpoints. RESULTS: Overall, 106 patients made up the study population (55 TC-325 and 51 SET, after 1 exclusion in the TC-325 group and 5 in the SET group). Baseline characteristics and endoscopic findings did not differ between the groups. Thirty-day rebleeding was significantly lower in the TC-325 (2.1% TC-325 vs 21.3% SET; odds ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.80; P = .003). Immediate hemostasis rates were 100% in the TC-325 group vs 68.6% in the SET group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.93-2.29; P < .001). Other secondary outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups. Independent predictors of 6-month survival included the Charlson comorbidity index (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.32; P = .007) and receiving an additional nonendoscopic hemostatic or oncologic treatment during 30 days after the index endoscopy (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.43; P < .001) after adjustment for functional status, Glasgow-Blatchford score, and an upper GI source of bleeding. CONCLUSION: The TC-325 hemostatic powder results in greater immediate hemostasis rates followed by lower 30-day rebleeding rates when compared to contemporary SET. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03855904).

EUS-guided coil and glue injection versus endoscopic glue injection for gastric varices: International multicentre propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gastric varices (GVs) are conventionally managed with endoscopic cyanoacrylate (E-CYA) glue injection. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided therapy using combination of coils and CYA glue (EUS-CG) is a relatively recent modality. There is limited data comparing the two techniques. METHODOLOGY: This international multicentre study included patients with GV undergoing endotherapy from two Indian and two Italian tertiary care centres. Patients undergoing EUS-CG were compared with propensity-matched E-CYA cases from a cohort of 218 patients. Procedural details such as amount of glue, number of coils used, number of sessions required for obliteration, bleeding after index procedure rates and need for re-intervention were noted. RESULTS: Of 276 patients, 58 (male 42, 72.4%; mean age-44.3 ± 12.1 years) underwent EUS-CG and were compared with 118 propensity-matched cases of E-CYA. In the EUS-CG arm, complete obliteration at 4 weeks was noted in 54 (93.1%) cases. Compared to the E-CYA cohort, EUS-CG arm showed significantly lower number of session (1.0 vs. 1.5; p < 0.0001) requirement, lower subsequent-bleeding episodes (13.8% vs. 39.1%; p < 0.0001) and lower re-intervention (12.1% vs. 50.4%; p < 0.001) rates. On multivariable regression analysis, size of the varix (aOR-1.17; CI 1.08-1.26) and technique of therapy (aOR-14.71; CI 4.32-50.0) were significant predictors of re-bleeding. A maximum GV size >17.5 mm had a 69% predictive accuracy for need for re-intervention. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapy of GV using coil and CYA glue is a safe technique with better efficacy and lower re-bleeding rates on follow-up compared to the conventional endoscopic CYA therapy.

Evaluation of a single-use gastroscope in patients presenting with suspected upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a pilot feasibility study (One-Scope I).

BACKGROUND : Outbreaks of multidrug-resistant bacteria due to contaminated duodenoscopes and infection risks during the COVID-19 pandemic have driven the development of single-use endoscopes. The first single-use gastroscope is now available in Europe. Besides waste disposal and cost issues, the infection risk and performance remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate a single-use gastroscope in patients with signs of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. METHODS : 20 consecutive patients presenting with clinical signs of upper gastrointestinal bleeding between October and November 2022 were included in this case series. The primary aim was technical success, defined as access to the descending duodenum and adequate assessment of the upper gastrointestinal tract for the presence of a bleeding site. RESULTS : The primary aim was achieved in 19/20 patients (95 %). The bleeding site was identified in 18 patients. A therapeutic intervention was performed in six patients (two cap-mounted clips, one standard hemostatic clip, two variceal band ligations, one hemostatic powder, two adrenaline injections); technical and clinical success were achieved in all six patients. Two crossovers to a standard gastroscope occurred. CONCLUSIONS : Use of single-use gastroscopes may be feasible for patients presenting for urgent endoscopic evaluation and treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Emergency Endoscopic Hemostasis for Gastrointestinal Bleeding Using a Self-Assembling Peptide: A Case Series.

Background and Objectives: A novel synthetic self-assembling peptide, PuraStat, has been introduced as a hemostatic agent. This case series aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of PuraStat for gastrointestinal bleeding during emergency endoscopy. Cases: Twenty-five patients with gastrointestinal bleeding who had undergone emergency endoscopy with PuraStat between August 2021 and December 2022 were retrospectively examined. Six patients were receiving antithrombotic agents, and ten patients with refractory gastrointestinal bleeding had undergone at least one endoscopic hemostatic procedure. The breakdown of bleeding was gastroduodenal ulcer/erosion in 12 cases, bleeding after gastroduodenal or colorectal endoscopic resection in 4 cases, rectal ulcer in 2 cases, postoperative anastomotic ulcer in 2 cases, and gastric cancer, diffuse antral vascular ectasia, small intestinal ulcer, colonic diverticular bleeding, and radiation proctitis in each case. The method of hemostasis was only PuraStat application in six cases, and hemostasis in combination with high-frequency hemostatic forceps, hemostatic clip, argon plasma coagulation, and hemostatic agents (i.e., thrombin) in the remaining cases. Rebleeding was observed in three cases. Hemostatic efficiency was observed in 23 cases (92%). Conclusions: PuraStat has the expected hemostatic effect on gastrointestinal bleeding during emergency endoscopy. The use of PuraStat should be considered in emergency endoscopic hemostasis of gastrointestinal bleeding.