Efficacy of Hemospray in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.


Journal

Journal of gastrointestinal and liver diseases : JGLD
ISSN: 1842-1121
Titre abrégé: J Gastrointestin Liver Dis
Pays: Romania
ID NLM: 101272825

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
13 Mar 2020
Historique:
received: 05 12 2019
accepted: 14 02 2020
entrez: 17 3 2020
pubmed: 17 3 2020
medline: 10 4 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Hemospray is a non-contact modality of endoscopic hemostasis that has been used in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) with varying success. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of Hemospray in the management of UGIB. An electronic bibliographic search of digital dissertation databases was performed from inception till October 2019. All prospective studies, including randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of Hemospray in the management of UGIB were analysed. The primary outcome was immediate haemostasis and the secondary outcome was rebleeding rate. Subgroup analyses based on etiology of UGIB (tumour-related, variceal, etc) were also performed. A total of 11 prospective studies, including 4 randomized trials were included for the analysis. The pooled immediate haemostasis rate with Hemospray was 93% (95% CI 90.3-95%, p<0.001). Rebleeding occurred in 14.4% (95% CI 8.8-22.8%, p<0.001) of patients. For the subgroup of tumour-related bleeding, the immediate haemostasis rate was 95.3% (95% CI 89.6-97.3%; p <0.001) and rebleeding rate was 21.9% (95% CI 13.9-32.7%, p <0.001). In patients with variceal bleeding, immediate haemostasis was achieved in 92.7% (95% CI 83.6-96.9%; p<0.001) of patients, with a rebleeding rate of 3.1% (95% CI 0.9-10.2%, p <0.001). Hemospray shows high immediate haemostasis and low bleeding percentages. The odds were in its favour compared to conventional endoscopic modalities, but not statistically significant. The results are undermined by the risk of bias in the studies. Nevertheless, it is an easy technique that should be further investigated with better studies.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND AIMS OBJECTIVE
Hemospray is a non-contact modality of endoscopic hemostasis that has been used in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) with varying success. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of Hemospray in the management of UGIB.
METHODS METHODS
An electronic bibliographic search of digital dissertation databases was performed from inception till October 2019. All prospective studies, including randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of Hemospray in the management of UGIB were analysed. The primary outcome was immediate haemostasis and the secondary outcome was rebleeding rate. Subgroup analyses based on etiology of UGIB (tumour-related, variceal, etc) were also performed.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 11 prospective studies, including 4 randomized trials were included for the analysis. The pooled immediate haemostasis rate with Hemospray was 93% (95% CI 90.3-95%, p<0.001). Rebleeding occurred in 14.4% (95% CI 8.8-22.8%, p<0.001) of patients. For the subgroup of tumour-related bleeding, the immediate haemostasis rate was 95.3% (95% CI 89.6-97.3%; p <0.001) and rebleeding rate was 21.9% (95% CI 13.9-32.7%, p <0.001). In patients with variceal bleeding, immediate haemostasis was achieved in 92.7% (95% CI 83.6-96.9%; p<0.001) of patients, with a rebleeding rate of 3.1% (95% CI 0.9-10.2%, p <0.001).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Hemospray shows high immediate haemostasis and low bleeding percentages. The odds were in its favour compared to conventional endoscopic modalities, but not statistically significant. The results are undermined by the risk of bias in the studies. Nevertheless, it is an easy technique that should be further investigated with better studies.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32176745
doi: 10.15403/jgld-660
doi:

Substances chimiques

Hemostatics 0
Minerals 0
hemospray 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

69-76

Auteurs

Hemant Mutneja (H)

John H Stroger Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, Illinois, USA. hemantmutneja@gmail.com.

Abhishek Bhurwal (A)

Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA. abhishek.bhurwal@gmail.com.

Andrew Go (A)

Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA. andrew.go@lumc.edu.

Gurpartap Singh Sidhu (GS)

John H Stroger Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, Illinois, USA. drgssidhu@gmail.com.

Shilpa Arora (S)

Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA. shilpa_arora@rush.edu.

Bashar M Attar (BM)

John H Stroger Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, Illinois; Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois USA. bashar_attar@rush.edu.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH