Hemostatic effect of topical hemocoagulase spray in digestive endoscopy

Table 1 General data of patients in both groups

	Study group	Control group
Drug spray	Hemocoagulase	8% norepinephrine
Patients	39	50
Gender
Male	18	20
Female	21	30
Age	52.90 ± 1.73	53.10 ± 1.76
Category of endoscopic treatments
ESD	28	39
Submucosal tunneling	11	11
(POEM and STER)
Hemostatic effect
Successful	39	47
Failed	0	3
Complication	2	10
Perforation	2	7
Late bleeding	0	3

ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection; POEM: Peroral endoscopic myotomy; STER: Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection.

Table 2 Hemostatic efficacy between the two groups

Group	Study	Control	Total
Successful hemostasis	39 (100)	47 (94)	86 (97)
Failed hemostasis	0 (0)	3 (6)	3 (3)
Total	39	50	89

χ² = 3.541, P = 0.060.

Table 3 Complications between the two groups

Group	Study	Control	Total
Perforation	2 (5)	7 (14)	9 (10)
Late bleeding	0a	3 (6)	3 (3)
Total	2 (5)b	10 (20)	12 (13)

χ² = 3.901,

^aP = 0.048 vs control; χ² = 4.576,

^bP = 0.032 vs control.