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.
Introduction
Hemostatic powders have been developed to address current limitations of conventional endoscopic treatment for gastrointestinal bleeding. Conventional management, consisting of mechanical clipping, thermocoagulation, and epinephrine injection, is estimated to fail and lead to mortality in 5 % to 10 % of cases 1 2 . In part, this is due to difficulty applying these methods to bleeding in anatomically challenging areas, lesions with poor visualization, diffuse bleeding, and friable tissue. Further, the success of these techniques depends upon availability of skilled endoscopists and equipment. Hemostatic powders provide a treatment modality that has a minimal learning curve, is atraumatic, accesses anatomically difficult areas, and is broadly applicable to various etiologies of gastrointestinal bleeding. On a healthcare system level, use of hemostatic powders as rescue therapy where conventional therapy fails is projected to lead to economic savings 3 . For upper gastrointestinal bleeding, the 2021 American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) clinical guidelines conditionally recommend endoscopic hemostatic therapy for patients with actively bleeding ulcers, while the 2019 International Consensus guidelines recommend its use only as a temporizing measure toward definitive treatment 4 5 . These evolving guidelines reflect recent advances in and research about hemostatic powders.
Given the rapid development of several hemostatic powders worldwide and addition of new agents, we provide a comprehensive clinical summary of all therapies, including those not discussed in previous reviews 6 7 8 9 . We review more established agents, TC-325 (Hemospray), EndoClot, and Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS) as well as newer agents, CEGP-003 and UI-EWD (NexPowder). We also review non-powder, preclinical, and alternative agents with mounting evidence. For each agent, we outline the mechanism of action, supporting clinical or preclinical studies, associated adverse events (AEs), and technical issues.
Methods
A literature search was conducted on MEDLINE from 2000–2021 for the keywords and MeSH headings “gastrointestinal bleeding,” “gastrointestinal hemorrhage,” “hemostatic powder,” “hemospray,” “TC-325,” “EndoClot,” “polysaccharide hemostatic system,” “polysaccharide hemostatic powder,” and “Ankaferd blood stopper.” Relevant studies were reviewed for mechanism of action, rate of immediate hemostasis and rebleeding, factors associated with hemostatic failure, and AEs.
Results
TC-325 (Hemospray)
Mechanism of action
TC-325 (Hemospray) is comprised of bentonite, an inert mineral powder that rapidly absorbs water upon contact with blood, creating an adhesive seal for mechanical tamponade, and concentrating clotting factors ( Table 1 ) 10 11 . The powder is then sloughed off the mucosa and passes through the gastrointestinal tract, which has been demonstrated by multiple studies finding no residue on re-look endoscopy in 24 to 72 hours 10 12 . TC-325 is propelled by compressed air through a catheter placed in the working channel of the endoscope, allowing for non-contact and non-traumatic spray application in the bleeding area.
Table 1. 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 evidence
TC-325 is the most studied and widely used hemostatic powder on the market, with studies on its clinical use in many settings of gastrointestinal bleeding ( Table 2 ). TC-325 has been successfully applied to many etiologies including peptic ulcer disease, malignant gastrointestinal bleeding, post-procedure gastrointestinal bleeding (endoscopic mucosal resection, sphincterotomy, ampullary resection, and polypectomy), variceal bleeding, portal hypertensive gastropathy/colopathy, and diverticular bleeding 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 . Of particular note is successful use in clinical scenarios not amenable to traditional endoscopic methods, such as malignant gastrointestinal bleeding with friable surfaces or diverticular bleeding. A study of urgent after-hours endoscopic hemostasis using TC-325 showed similar efficacy between “more” and “less” experiences endoscopists, demonstrating its ease of use 36 .
Table 2. 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.
Recent meta-analyses have studied use of TC-325 in both primary and secondary settings. Chahal et al. described 27 clinical studies with 1916 patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding of various etiologies. Pooled hemostasis was 94.5 % and rebleeding rate was 9.9 % in 3 days, and 17.6 % in 30 days. The addition of TC-325 to conventional treatment led to a higher rate of immediate hemostasis compared with conventional treatment alone with odds ratio of 4.40 42 . Similarly, a systematic review of lower gastrointestinal bleeding, including nine studies with a total of 194 patients, observed an immediate hemostasis rate of 96.2 % and a 7-day rebleeding rate of 19.5 % 9 . When compared to conventional hemostatic therapy, TC-325 had similar efficacy in initial hemostasis and rebleeding rates 13 14 15 16 . When added to pharmacotherapy, TC-325 use was associated with lower rebleeding rates compared to pharmacotherapy alone 17 .
While TC-325 has a high immediate hemostasis rate, particularly in scenarios unsuitable for conventional treatment, there is a significant rebleeding rate. Multiple studies have demonstrated that the risk of rebleeding is highest within the first week following TC-325 application, likely due to sloughing off the protective seal, thus limiting its efficacy in high-risk lesions that are prone to rebleeding. Multiple prognosticators for rebleeding have been identified including high-risk stigmata (Forrest 1a lesion) 8 23 31 43 , use as salvage therapy 8 22 23 , and clinical indicators of more severe gastrointestinal bleeding such as syncope, hypotension, and higher Blatchford Score ( Table 3 ).
Table 3. Factors associated with recurrent bleeding and failure of TC-325 (Hemospray).
Category | Factor |
Clinical Presentation |
Syncope
33
Melena 23 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score (ASA) ≥ III 23 Blatchford score 32 Hypotension 31 |
Investigations |
Creatinine ≥ 15 mg/L
23
International normalized ratio (INR) ≥ 1.3 28 |
Medications |
Vasoactive drugs
31
Anti-thrombotic/coagulant therapy 19 |
Endoscopic Findings | Spurting vessel (Forrest class Ia) 8 23 25 31 |
Management | Use as salvage therapy 8 22 23 |
Adverse events
As evidence for TC-325 has been accruing since 2011, there have been several reports of AEs related to its use ( Table 4 ). Minor AEs include self-limited abdominal pain immediately after spraying, which has been attributed to visceral distension from the CO 2 propellant 16 23 31 . Several cases of viscus perforation have been identified following use of TC-325, though in many cases it is difficult to discern whether the cause was TC-325, endoscope trauma, or friable tissue from the underlying condition 12 21 25 31 36 39 . There has been a case of biliary obstruction when TC-325 was applied to post-sphincterotomy bleeding 44 ; however, there are also cases of successful application without complications 45 . Two thromboembolic events have been described, possibly due to embolism of the powder into the low pressure venous system, leading to a splenic infarct 21 and pulmonary embolism in a patient with a known factor II prothrombotic mutation 31 . There are two reports of congealed powder leading to adhesion of the endoscope to the mucosa, particularly when TC-325 is sprayed in retroflexion, and led to one case of retained endoscope for 48 hours 12 46 .
Table 4. 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.
Spray catheter occlusion has been reported in several studies. To prevent this, some operators utilize prolonged insufflation following blood aspiration to dry the working channel prior to powder application 40 .
EndoClot
Mechanism of action
EndoClot is composed of absorbable modified polymers (AMP) derived from plant starch. Upon contact with blood, polymers rapidly absorb water to form a protective gel matrix and concentrate coagulation factors ( Table 1 ) 47 . EndoClot has also been shown to activate fibroblasts and growth factors to promote wound healing 48 . The AMP are degraded by endogenous amylase and glucoamylase in the gastrointestinal tract, leaving no residual powder on re-look endoscopy after 24 hours 49 .
Clinical evidence
EndoClot has been studied in settings of gastroinestinal bleeding prophylaxis as well as primary, rescue, and combination treatment with conventional endoscopic methods ( Table 2 ). Similar to TC-325, EndoClot has been applied to a variety of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleed settings, including malignant bleeding, peptic ulcer disease, varices, and radiation injury. As primary or secondary treatment, EndoClot has immediate hemostasis rates of 83 % to 100 % and recurrent bleeding rates of 11 % to 23 % 43 50 51 .
Preventive use following high-risk endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), including Forrest 1a lesions, showed rebleeding rates of 7.3 % at 3 days 52 53 . Rebleeding occurred after 48 hours in the post-ESD cohort, suggesting protection from the gel matrix for the duration that it resides on the mucosal surface. There was also a signal toward superior ulcer healing after using EndoClot, as re-look endoscopy showed a lower proportion of post-procedural Forrest IIa ulcers compared to other studies without use of EndoClot 52 .
EndoClot has also been compared to conventional therapy and TC-325. Observational studies have shown that EndoClot had similar 30 day rebleeding rates compared to conventional treatment, in both primary and combination settings 49 54 . Studies comparing TC-325 and EndoClot have found similar rates of hemostasis and rebleeding, though research with larger sample sizes and randomized design are lacking 39 40 . Similar to TC-325, EndoClot also has limited residence time in the gastrointestinal tract, its application may be limited in lesions at high risk of rebleeding, as evidenced by high rates of recurrent bleeding in 24 to 72 hours.
Adverse events
No AEs were reported in reviewed clinical studies, however, there remains a theoretical risk of perforation, intestinal obstruction, embolism, and allergic reactions.
Ankaferd Blood Stopper
Mechanism of action
Developed in Turkey, ABS is composed of herbal extracts from five different plants, Thymus vulgaris, Glycyrrhiza glabra, Vitis vinifera, Alpinia officinarum, and Urtica dioica ( Table 1 ) 55 . Upon contact with moisture, ABS forms an encapsulated protein network that facilitates erythrocyte aggregation, leading to hemostasis 56 . Other reported mechanisms of action include inhibition of fibrinolysis and anti-coagulant pathways, as well as angiogenesis and cellular proliferation to promote wound healing 22 .
Clinical evidence
Several cohort studies have been conducted in cases of gastrointestinal bleeding of various etiologies treated with ABS as monotherapy or combined with conventional treatment ( Table 2 ). Overall, the rate of immediate hemostasis ranges from 73 % to 100 % and rebleeding rate ranges from 0 % to 33 % 57 58 59 60 . In a series of 10 patients with malignant gastrointestinal bleeding, all had complete hemostasis up to 48 days until definitive management with surgery, suggesting a role as bridging therapy 58 . Case reports have also shown successful use of ABS for variceal bleeding 61 62 63 , rectal ulcers 64 , radiation colitis 65 66 , post-polypectomy 67 , and diverticular bleeding 68 . ABS was also effective in a case of post-sphincterotomy bleeding with no associated complications 55 . Interestingly, in a case series of patients with gastric and rectal carcinoma, ABS application led to decreased tumor microvessel density, hypothesized to be due to inhibition of angiogenesis, suggestive of anti-tumor properties 69 .
Adverse events
A single AE has been noted in the case of a patient with gastroduodenal amyloidosis who developed duodenal perforation following ABS application, however authors concluded that it is unknown if this was due to the disease process itself 70 . There is also a risk of vascular embolization with ABS application to variceal bleeding; however, it has been successfully used in several cases reports of variceal bleeding 61 62 63 .
CEGP-003
Mechanism of action
CEGP-003 is composed of absorbable and adhesive macromolecules of hydroxyethylcellulose with epidermal growth factor (EGF) ( Table 1 ). Beyond forming an adhesive seal when in contact with water, the EGF component promotes wound healing by activating EGF receptors and intracellular pathways of wound healing 71 .
Clinical evidence
Bang et al. conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing CEGP-003 with epinephrine injection as primary intervention for upper gastrointestinal bleeding ( Table 2 ). Bleeding etiologies included peptic ulcer disease (20.5 %), post-EMR bleeding (15.1 %), and post-ESD bleeding (64.4 %). Thirty-five patients randomized to CEGP-003 had an immediate hemostasis rate of 100 % with recurrent bleeding at a rate of 8.6 %, compared to 37 patients in the epinephrine arm with only 89.2 % achieving immediate hemostasis and 2.7 % rebleeding at 3 days post-procedure. Statistically, the rebleeding rate was not significantly higher for CEGP-003 but numerically it is more than double that of the epinephrine arm. However, as epinephrine injection is rarely used as monotherapy for hemostasis, further research is required before CEGP-003 can be considered comparable to standard of care in gastrointestinal bleeding 71 .
Adverse events
No AEs related to CEGP-003 have been reported; however, given the limited number of studies, further research is required.
UI-EWD (NexPowder)
Mechanism of action
UI-EWD (NexPowder) is composed of oxidized dextran and succinic anhydride, which is converted to an adhesive hydrogel upon contact with moisture ( Table 1 ). The resulting hydrogel cross-links within itself and with adjacent tissue to create a mechanical barrier to promote hemostasis. As it does not require clot formation to achieve hemostasis, UI-EWD does not require active bleeding. This provides it a potential role in prophylaxis, such as post-procedure or following primary hemostasis achieved with conventional endoscopic techniques. Other advantages include a liquid coating technology to improve delivery without catheter occlusion, prevent particle scattering, and a distinctive blue color for improved visualization of treated areas 72 73 .
Clinical evidence
While UI-EWD is the newest development in hemostatic powders for clinical use, initial results are promising ( Table 2 ). Park et al. studied 17 patients with refractory gastrointestinal bleeding of various etiologies (including peptic ulcer disease, post-intervention, and malignancy), of which 12 % were Forrest class 1a and 88 % were Forrest class 1b. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 94 % of patients and 30-day rebleed rate was 19 %. For Forrest 1a lesions, immediate hemostasis was only achieved in 50 %, suggesting it is likely inadequate in the highest risk lesions similar to other hemostatic powders 74 .
When used as monotherapy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding in 56 patients, rate of immediate hemostasis was 96.4 % and 30-day rebleed was noted in only 3.7 %. Patients in this study had similar bleeding etiologies of peptic ulcer, post-intervention, anastomotic site, and malignant bleeding; however, this population had lower-risk stigmata as Forrest 1a lesions were excluded and only 64.5 % of lesions were Forrest 1b. Importantly, the hydrogel remained attached in 39 % of patients after 3 days, suggesting an improvement in residence time from previous hemostatic powders 75 . Shin et al. studied UI-EWD use as monotherapy or rescue in 41 patients with malignant bleeding, including carcinoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, and lymphoma. Immediate hemostasis rate was high at 97.5 % and rebleeding rate was 22.5 % in 28 days 76 .
These initial results suggest that UI-EWD has high immediate hemostasis rate and low rebleeding rate when used in less acute gastroinestinal bleeding. A particular advantage is the prolonged residence time of the hydrogel that provides a mechanical seal, which may be especially well-suited for lesions with high-risk stigmata that may rebleed. However, the initial hemostasis rate for Forrest 1a lesions was low at 50 % so the role of UI-EWD in high-risk lesions remains undefined 74 . Further research is needed, particularly in comparison to conventional methods and other hemostatic powders.
Adverse events
Despite the liquid coating technology, clogging of the spray catheter was noted in 3.6 % of patients, which was easily addressed with using another catheter 75 . No procedure-related AEs have been observed to date, though the number of clinical studies remains limited with this novel agent.
Other treatments
Self-propelling thrombin powder (CounterFlow Powder)
Self-propelling thrombin powder (SPTP; CounterFlow Powder) is a new hemostatic powder with unique properties to deliver the clotting factor directly to damaged bleeding vessels. Still in preclinical study, SPTP is adapted for endoscopic use from a gauze formulation that was used to successfully manage non-compressible hemorrhage 77 78 .
SPTP is composed of porous calcium carbonate microparticles loaded with thrombin and formulated with an organic acid. Protonated tranexamic acid has been included as the organic acid component for its potent anti-fibrinolytic properties. Contact with blood leads to effervescence of the powder, propelling thrombin to penetrate deep into the bleeding lesion to initiate hemostasis and stabilize clots 77 . This direct activity is demonstrated by improved hemostasis when SPTP was added to non-compression dressings in a porcine model of lethal femoral artery hemorrhage and a sheep model of turbinate bleeding 78 79 80 .
As it has high hemostatic potential from thrombin, the mechanism of SPTP is likely well-suited to higher risk gastrointestinal bleeding with exposed vessels. In a porcine model of Forrest class Ia and Ib upper gastrointestinal bleeding, hemostasis was successfully achieved at all sites 81 . Previous non-gastrointestinal bleeding studies showed that SPTP is safe and well-tolerated with no evidence of toxicity or thromboembolism 77 78 .
TDM-621 (PuraStat)
While not a powder formulation, TDM-621 (PuraStat; 3 D Matrix Europe SAS, Caluire-et-Cuire, France) is a topical hemostatic agent for surgical wounds that has been newly applied to endoscopic therapy with positive results. It is a transparent gel comprised of a specific sequence of amino acids that self-assemble into beta protein sheets upon contact with neutralizing fluid, forming a hydrogel scaffold similar to human extracellular matrix 82 . As the hydrogel is transparent, visibility of the bleeding area and endoscope views remain unaffected. The gel formulation also prevents clogging of the catheter channel 83 .
Compared to diathermy in a randomized controlled trial of post-ESD patients, TDM-621 had similar hemostasis and rebleeding, but superior wound healing at 4 weeks 84 . A prospective observational study was conducted using TDM-621 as primary and secondary treatment in 111 patients with gastrointestinal bleeding. The rate of immediate hemostasis was 94 % and rebleeding rate was 16 % at 30 days 85 . TDM-621 has also shown efficacy in refractory radiation proctopathy 86 , post-EMR/ESD bleeding 87 , and as rescue therapy in acute gastrointestinal bleeding 88 . No AEs or technical failures have been reported to date.
Conclusion
The last decade has shown rapid advancements in endoscopic hemostasis technology with development of several hemostatic powders. These powders have demonstrated their role for various bleeding etiologies and particularly in clinical scenarios where conventional treatment fails. Substantial rates of early rebleeding, likely due to sloughing off of the protective seal, limit their use as definitive monotherapy in current guidelines. Further, technical issues of catheter occlusion and impaired visual field are uncommon but reduce the usability of hemostatic powders. To address these challenges, iterative improvements have been made, exemplified by the design behind new agents, though further study to delineate their clinical efficacy is still underway. Ongoing research and development of hemostatic powders, as well as evolving clinical expertise to optimize their use, will propel endoscopic hemostasis into the future.
Footnotes
Competing interests Dr. Kastrup is the inventor on patents and intellectual property, and Dr. Ali-Mohamad, Dr. Donnellan, and Dr. Kastrup are involved in commercialization activities related to self-propelling thrombin powder.
References
- 1.Gralnek I M, Barkun A N, Bardou M. Management of acute bleeding from a peptic ulcer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:928–937. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra0706113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Rosenstock S J, Møller M H, Larsson H. Improving quality of care in peptic ulcer bleeding: nationwide cohort study of 13,498 consecutive patients in the Danish Clinical Register of Emergency Surgery. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:1449–1457. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2013.162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Barkun A N, Adam V, Lu Y et al. Using Hemospray improves the cost-effectiveness ratio in the management of upper gastrointestinal nonvariceal bleeding. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018;52:36–44. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Laine L, Barkun A N, Saltzman J R et al. ACG Clinical Guideline: Upper Gastrointestinal and Ulcer Bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021;116:899–917. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Barkun A N, Almadi M, Kuipers E J et al. Management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: guideline recommendations from the international consensus group. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:805. doi: 10.7326/M19-1795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Bustamante-Balén M, Plumé G. Role of hemostatic powders in the endoscopic management of gastrointestinal bleeding. World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol. 2014;5:284–292. doi: 10.4291/wjgp.v5.i3.284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Chen Y-I, Barkun A N. Hemostatic powders in gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2015;25:535–552. doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2015.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Facciorusso A, Straus Takahashi M, Eyileten Postula C et al. Efficacy of hemostatic powders in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis. 2019;51:1633–1640. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2019.07.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Facciorusso A, Bertini M, Bertoni M et al. Effectiveness of hemostatic powders in lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open. 2021;9:E1283–E1290. doi: 10.1055/a-1495-4764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Sung J JY, Luo D, Wu J CY et al. Early clinical experience of the safety and effectiveness of Hemospray in achieving hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding. Endoscopy. 2011;43:291–295. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1256311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Holster I L, Maat M PD, Ducharme R et al. Sa1671 In vitro examination of the effects of the hemostatic powder (HemosprayTM) on coagulation and thrombus formation in humans. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:AB240. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Smith L A, Stanley A J, Bergman J J et al. Hemospray application in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: results of the Survey to Evaluate the Application of Hemospray in the Luminal Tract. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;48:e89–92. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lau J YW, Pittayanon R, Kwek A et al. Comparison of a hemostatic powder and standard treatment in the control of active bleeding from upper nonvariceal lesions. Ann Intern Med. 2021 doi: 10.7326/M21-0975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Sinha R, Lockman K A, Church N I et al. The use of hemostatic spray as an adjunct to conventional hemostatic measures in high-risk nonvariceal upper GI bleeding (with video) Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;84:900–906000. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.04.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Baracat F I, de Moura D TH, Brunaldi V O et al. Randomized controlled trial of hemostatic powder versus endoscopic clipping for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:317–324. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-06769-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Chen Y-I, Wyse J, Lu Y et al. TC-325 hemostatic powder versus current standard of care in managing malignant GI bleeding: a pilot randomized clinical trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;91:321–3280. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Ibrahim M, El-Mikkawy A, Abdel Hamid M et al. Early application of haemostatic powder added to standard management for oesophagogastric variceal bleeding: a randomised trial. Gut. 2019;68:844–853. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314653. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Leblanc S, Vienne A, Dhooge M et al. Early experience with a novel hemostatic powder used to treat upper GI bleeding related to malignancies or after therapeutic interventions (with videos) Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;78:169–175. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.03.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Holster I L, Kuipers E J, Tjwa E TTL. Hemospray in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in patients on antithrombotic therapy. Endoscopy. 2013;45:63–66. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1325793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Sulz M C, Frei R, Meyenberger C et al. Routine use of Hemospray for gastrointestinal bleeding: prospective two-center experience in Switzerland. Endoscopy. 2014;46:619–624. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1365505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Yau A HL, Ou G, Galorport C et al. Safety and efficacy of Hemospray ® in upper gastrointestinal bleeding . Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;28:72–76. doi: 10.1155/2014/759436. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Chen Y-I, Barkun A, Nolan S. Hemostatic powder TC-325 in the management of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a two-year experience at a single institution. Endoscopy. 2015;47:167–171. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1378098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Haddara S, Jacques J, Lecleire S et al. A novel hemostatic powder for upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a multicenter study (the “GRAPHE” registry) Endoscopy. 2016;48:1084–1095. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-116148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Giles H, Lal D, Gerred S et al. Efficacy and safety of TC-325 (Hemospray™) for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding at Middlemore Hospital: the early New Zealand experience. N Z Med J. 2016;129:38–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Hagel A F, Albrecht H, Nägel A et al. The Application of Hemospray in gastrointestinal bleeding during emergency endoscopy. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2017;2017:e3083481. doi: 10.1155/2017/3083481. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Cahyadi O, Bauder M, Meier B et al. Effectiveness of TC-325 (Hemospray) for treatment of diffuse or refractory upper gastrointestinal bleeding - a single center experience. Endosc Int Open. 2017;5:E1159–E1164. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-118794. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Arena M, Masci E, Eusebi L H et al. Hemospray for treatment of acute bleeding due to upper gastrointestinal tumours. Dig Liver Dis. 2017;49:514–517. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2016.12.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Pittayanon R, Rerknimitr R, Barkun A. Prognostic factors affecting outcomes in patients with malignant GI bleeding treated with a novel endoscopically delivered hemostatic powder. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:994–1002. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.11.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Ramírez-Polo A I, Casal-Sánchez J, Hernández-Guerrero A et al. Treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding with hemostatic powder (TC-325): a multicenter study. Surg Endosc. 2019;33:2349–2356. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-06719-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Hookey L, Barkun A, Sultanian R et al. Successful hemostasis of active lower GI bleeding using a hemostatic powder as monotherapy, combination therapy, or rescue therapy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;89:865–871. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.10.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Rodríguez de Santiago E, Burgos-Santamaría D, Pérez-Carazo L et al. Hemostatic spray powder TC-325 for GI bleeding in a nationwide study: survival and predictors of failure via competing risks analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;90:581–5.9E8. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.06.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Alzoubaidi D, Hussein M, Rusu R et al. Outcomes from an international multicenter registry of patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding undergoing endoscopic treatment with Hemospray. Digest Endosc. 2020;32:96–105. doi: 10.1111/den.13502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Chahal D, Lee J GH, Ali-Mohamad N et al. High rate of re-bleeding after application of Hemospray for upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeds. Dig Liver Dis. 2020;52:768–772. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2020.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Hussein M, Alzoubaidi D, Lopez M-F et al. Hemostatic spray powder TC-325 in the primary endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcer-related bleeding: multicenter international registry. Endoscopy. 2021;53:36–43. doi: 10.1055/a-1186-5360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Hussein M, Alzoubaidi D, O’Donnell M et al. Hemostatic powder TC-325 treatment of malignancy-related upper gastrointestinal bleeds: International registry outcomes. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;36:3027–3032. doi: 10.1111/jgh.15579. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Becq A, Houdeville C, Tran Minh M-L et al. Experience with the use of a hemostatic powder in 152 patients undergoing urgent endoscopy for gastrointestinal bleeding. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2021;45:101558. doi: 10.1016/j.clinre.2020.10.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Facciorusso A, Bertini M, Bertoni M. Efficacy of hemostatic powders in lower gastrointestinal bleeding: Clinical series and literature review. Dig Liver Dis. 2021;53:1327–1333. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2021.05.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Kwek B EA, Ang T L, Ong P LJ et al. TC-325 versus the conventional combined technique for endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcers with high-risk bleeding stigmata: A randomized pilot study. J Dig Dis. 2017;18:323–329. doi: 10.1111/1751-2980.12481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Vitali F, Naegel A, Atreya R et al. Comparison of Hemospray ® and EndoclotTM for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding . World J Gastroenterol. 2019;25:1592–1602. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i13.1592. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Paoluzi O A, Cardamone C, Aucello A et al. Efficacy of hemostatic powders as monotherapy or rescue therapy in gastrointestinal bleeding related to neoplastic or non-neoplastic lesions. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2021:1–8. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2021.1974088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Ng J L, Marican M, Mathew R. Topical haemostatic powder as a novel endoscopic therapy for severe colonic diverticular bleeding. ANZ J Surg. 2019;89:E56–E60. doi: 10.1111/ans.14895. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Chahal D, Sidhu H, Zhao B et al. Efficacy of Hemospray (TC-325) in the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021;55:492–498. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Hagel A F, Raithel M, Hempen P et al. Multicenter analysis of endoclot as hemostatic powder in different endoscopic settings of the upper gastrointestinal tract. J Physiol Pharmacol. 2020 doi: 10.26402/jpp.2020.5.06. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Moosavi S, Chen Y I, Barkun A N. TC-325 application leading to transient obstruction of a post-sphincterotomy biliary orifice. Endoscopy. 2013;45:E130. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1326370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Baracat F I, Tranquillini C V, Brunaldi V O et al. Hemostatic powder: a new ally in the management of postsphincterotomy bleeding. VideoGIE. 2017;2:303–304. doi: 10.1016/j.vgie.2017.07.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Yii R SL, Chuah K H, Poh K S et al. Retained endoscope: an unexpected but serious complication of Hemospray ®. Dig Dis Sci. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10620-021-06835-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. VitraMed. EndoClot ® Polysaccharide Hemostatic System (EndoClot ® PHS). EndoClot . https://www.vitramed.com/products/EndoClot/EndoClotPHS https://www.vitramed.com/products/EndoClot/EndoClotPHS
- 48.Wang Y, Xu M, Dong H et al. Effects of PerClot ® on the healing of full-thickness skin wounds in rats . Acta Histochem. 2012;114:311–317. doi: 10.1016/j.acthis.2011.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Beg S, Al-Bakir I, Bhuva M et al. Early clinical experience of the safety and efficacy of EndoClot in the management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endosc Int Open. 2015;3:E605–E609. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1393087. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Prei J C, Barmeyer C, Bürgel N et al. EndoClot polysaccharide hemostatic system in nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding: results of a prospective multicenter observational pilot study. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;50:e95–e100. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000615. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Kim Y J, Park J C, Kim E H et al. Hemostatic powder application for control of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with gastric malignancy. Endosc Int Open. 2018;6:E700–E705. doi: 10.1055/a-0593-5884. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Hahn K Y, Park J C, Lee Y K et al. Efficacy of hemostatic powder in preventing bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection in high-risk patients. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;33:656–663. doi: 10.1111/jgh.13990. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Huang R, Pan Y, Hui N et al. Polysaccharide hemostatic system for hemostasis management in colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection. Digest Endosc. 2014;26:63–68. doi: 10.1111/den.12054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Park J C, Kim Y J, Kim E H et al. Effectiveness of the polysaccharide hemostatic powder in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Using propensity score matching. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;33:1500–1506. doi: 10.1111/jgh.14118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Beyazit Y, Kekilli M, Haznedaroglu I C et al. Ankaferd hemostat in the management of gastrointestinal hemorrhages. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17:3962–3970. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v17.i35.3962. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Haznedaroglu B Z, Haznedaroglu I C, Walker S L et al. Ultrastructural and morphological analyses of the in vitro and in vivo hemostatic effects of Ankaferd Blood Stopper. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2010;16:446–453. doi: 10.1177/1076029609343706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Kurt M, Onal I K, Akdogan M et al. Ankaferd Blood Stopper for controlling gastrointestinal bleeding due to distinct benign lesions refractory to conventional antihemorrhagic measures. Can J Gastroenterol. 2010;24:380–384. doi: 10.1155/2010/896819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Kurt M, Akdogan M, Onal I K et al. Endoscopic topical application of Ankaferd Blood Stopper for neoplastic gastrointestinal bleeding: A retrospective analysis. Digest Liver Disease. 2010;42:196–199. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2009.05.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Gungor G, Goktepe M H, Biyik M et al. Efficacy of ankaferd blood stopper application on non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;4:556–560. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v4.i12.556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Karaman A, Baskol M, Gursoy S. Endoscopic topical application of Ankaferd Blood Stopper ® in gastrointestinal bleeding . J Altern Complement Med. 2012;18:65–68. doi: 10.1089/acm.2010.0827. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Ozaslan E, Purnak T, Yildiz A et al. Bleeding due to slippage of elastic band during variceal ligation: successful use of Ankaferd blood stopper. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2010;29:166–168. doi: 10.1007/s12664-010-0043-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Tuncer I, Doganay L, Ozturk O. Instant control of fundal variceal bleeding with a folkloric medicinal plant extract: Ankaferd Blood Stopper. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:873–875. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.08.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Beyazit Y, Akdogan M, Sayilir A et al. Successful topical application of Ankaferd blood stopper in a patient with life-threatening fundal variceal bleeding despite cyanoacrilate injection. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2012;36:e9–11. doi: 10.1016/j.clinre.2011.07.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Ibis M, Kurt M, Onal I K et al. Successful management of bleeding due to solitary rectal ulcer via topical application of Ankaferd blood stopper. J Altern Complement Med. 2008;14:1073–1074. doi: 10.1089/acm.2008.0314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Shorbagi A, Sivri B. Successful management of a difficult case of radiation proctopathy with Ankaferd BloodStopper: a novel indication (with video) Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:666–667. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.12.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Ozaslan E, Purnak T, Yildiz A et al. The effect of Ankaferd blood stopper on severe radiation colitis. Endoscopy. 2009;41:E321–E322. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1215325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Karaman A, Torun E, Gürsoy S et al. Efficacy of Ankaferd Blood Stopper in postpolypectomy bleeding. J Altern Complement Med. 2010;16:1027–1028. doi: 10.1089/acm.2010.0089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Aslan E, Akyüz Ü, Pata C. The use of Ankaferd in diverticular bleeding: two case reports. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2013;24:441–443. doi: 10.4318/tjg.2013.0640. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Turhan N, Kurt M, Shorbagi A et al. Topical Ankaferd Blood Stopper administration to bleeding gastrointestinal carcinomas decreases tumor vascularization. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2874–2877. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2009.431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Beyazit Y, Onder F O, Torun S et al. Topical application of ankaferd hemostat in a patient with gastroduodenal amyloidosis complicated with gastrointestinal bleeding. Blood Coagulat Fibrinol. 2013;24:762–765. doi: 10.1097/MBC.0b013e328362d996. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Bang B W, Lee D H, Kim H K et al. CEGP-003 Spray has a similar hemostatic effect to epinephrine injection in cases of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Dig Dis Sci. 2018;63:3026–3032. doi: 10.1007/s10620-018-5208-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Bang B, Lee E, Maeng J et al. Efficacy of a novel endoscopically deliverable muco-adhesive hemostatic powder in an acute gastric bleeding porcine model. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0216829. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Medtronic. NexpowderTM* Endoscopic Hemostasis System. https://www.medtronic.com/covidien/en-gb/products/therapeutic-endoscopy/nexpowder-endoscopic-hemostasis-system.html https://www.medtronic.com/covidien/en-gb/products/therapeutic-endoscopy/nexpowder-endoscopic-hemostasis-system.html
- 74.Park J-S, Bang B W, Hong S J et al. Efficacy of a novel hemostatic adhesive powder in patients with refractory upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a pilot study. Endoscopy. 2019;51:458–462. doi: 10.1055/a-0809-5276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Park J-S, Kim H K, Shin Y W et al. Novel hemostatic adhesive powder for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endosc Int Open. 2019;7:E1763–E1767. doi: 10.1055/a-0982-3194. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Shin J, Cha B, Park J-S et al. Efficacy of a novel hemostatic adhesive powder in patients with upper gastrointestinal tumor bleeding. BMC Gastroenterol. 2021;21:40. doi: 10.1186/s12876-021-01611-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Baylis J R, Yeon J H, Thomson M H et al. Self-propelled particles that transport cargo through flowing blood and halt hemorrhage. Sci Adv. 2015;1:e1500379. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1500379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Baylis J R, Finkelstein-Kulka A, Macias-Valle L et al. Rapid hemostasis in a sheep model using particles that propel thrombin and tranexamic acid. Laryngoscope. 2017;127:787–793. doi: 10.1002/lary.26408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Baylis J R, St John A E, Wang X et al. Self-propelled dressings containing thrombin and tranexamic acid improve short-term survival in a swine model of lethal junctional hemorrhage. Shock. 2016;46:123–128. doi: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000000646. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Baylis J R, Lee M M, St John A E et al. Topical tranexamic acid inhibits fibrinolysis more effectively when formulated with self-propelling particles. J Thromb Haemost. 2019;17:1645–1654. doi: 10.1111/jth.14526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Ali-Mohamad N, Cau M, Baylis J et al. Severe upper gastrointestinal bleeding is halted by endoscopically delivered self-propelling thrombin powder: A porcine pilot study. Endosc Int Open. 2021;9:E693–E698. doi: 10.1055/a-1374-5839. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Masuhara H, Fujii T, Watanabe Y et al. Novel infectious agent-free hemostatic material (TDM-621) in cardiovascular surgery. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;18:444–451. doi: 10.5761/atcs.oa.12.01977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. PuraStat ® . 3-D Matrix . https://3dmatrix.com/products/purastat/ https://3dmatrix.com/products/purastat/
- 84.Subramaniam S, Kandiah K, Chedgy F et al. A novel self-assembling peptide for hemostasis during endoscopic submucosal dissection: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2021;53:27–35. doi: 10.1055/a-1198-0558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Branchi F, Klingenberg-Noftz R, Friedrich K et al. PuraStat in gastrointestinal bleeding: results of a prospective multicentre observational pilot study. Surg Endosc. 2022;36:2954–2961. doi: 10.1007/s00464-021-08589-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.White K, Henson C C. Endoscopically delivered Purastat for the treatment of severe haemorrhagic radiation proctopathy: a service evaluation of a new endoscopic treatment for a challenging condition. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2021;12:608–613. doi: 10.1136/flgastro-2020-101735. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Yoshida M, Goto N, Kawaguchi M et al. Initial clinical trial of a novel hemostat, TDM-621, in the endoscopic treatments of the gastric tumors. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;29:77–79. doi: 10.1111/jgh.12798. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.de Nucci G, Reati R, Arena I et al. Efficacy of a novel self-assembling peptide hemostatic gel as rescue therapy for refractory acute gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopy. 2020;52:773–779. doi: 10.1055/a-1145-3412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]