Hemospray Versus Conventional Therapy for Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
conventional endoscopic therapy
hemospray
hemostasis
hemostatic powder spray tc-325
non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding
systematic review and meta-analysis
tc-325
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2024
Feb 2024
Historique:
accepted:
27
02
2024
medline:
29
3
2024
pubmed:
29
3
2024
entrez:
29
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Hemospray (TC-325; Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC) has been used effectively in hemostasis in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Current guidelines suggest using Hemospray as a temporizing measure or adjunct technique. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Hemospray as a modality for primary hemostasis. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases from inception to August 1, 2022. Three independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles describing the application of Hemospray as the primary method of hemostasis in non-variceal upper GI bleeding patients. Three reviewers independently reviewed and abstracted data and assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes were (1) primary hemostasis rate, (2) rebleeding rate until hospital discharge or death, (3) need for surgery, and (4) overall mortality rate. Of the 211 studies identified, 146 underwent title and abstract review, and four were included in the systematic review. Pooled results from 303 patients showed that compared to standard of care, Hemospray has significantly higher odds of primary hemostasis (OR: 3.48, 95% CI: 1.09-11.18, p = 0.04). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of rebleeding rates (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.24-2.55, p = 0.69), need for surgery (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 0.35-7.41, p = 0.54), or overall mortality (OR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.56-2.08, p = 0.83). This systematic review and meta-analysis prove that Hemospray is a better modality of primary hemostasis in non-variceal upper GI bleeding when used as a primary method. At the same time, there is no significant difference in complications, including rebleeding, need for surgical intervention, and all-cause mortality.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38550446
doi: 10.7759/cureus.55079
pmc: PMC10978054
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
e55079Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024, Shah et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.