Vitali F, Naegel A, Atreya R, Zopf S, Neufert C, Siebler J, Neurath MF, Rath T. Comparison of Hemospray® and Endoclot™ for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding. World J Gastroenterol 2019; 25(13): 1592-1602 [PMID: 30983819 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i13.1592]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Timo Rath, MD, PhD, Full Professor, Ludwig Demling Endoscopy Center of Excellence, Division of Gastroenterology, Friedrich-Alexander-University, FAU Erlangen-Nuremberg, Ulmenweg 18, Erlangen 91054, Germany. timo.rath@uk-erlangen.de
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
Retrospective Cohort Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Gastroenterol. Apr 7, 2019; 25(13): 1592-1602 Published online Apr 7, 2019. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i13.1592
Table 1 Clinical characteristics of the total patient cohort treated with hemostatic powders for gastrointestinal bleeding n (%)
HS and EC n = 154
Hemospray n = 111
Endoclot n = 32
P value
Sex (M)
101 (65.6)
76 (68.5)
17 (53.1)
NS
Age, yr
mean ± SD
66.6 ± 14
67 ± 13.8
67.4 ± 15.1
NS
range
11-93
29-93
11-89
Rockall risk score
median ± SD
7.1 ± 1.7
7.1 ± 1.7
7.1 ± 1.8
NS
range
2-10
2-10
2-10
Comorbidities
Coagulopathy
48 (31.2)
36 (32.4)
6 (18.8)
NS
Renal insufficiency
74 (48.1)
53 (47.7)
15 (46.9)
NS
Hemodialysis
35 (22.7)
26 (23.4)
5 (15.6)
NS
Liver cirrhosis
40 (26)
32 (28.9)
5 (15.6)
NS
Bleeding locale
upper GI bleeding
137 (89)
102 (91.8)
25 (78.1)
0.04
lower GI bleeding
17 (11)
8 (8)
7 (21)
NS
Application as
Primary therapy
82 (53.2)
64 (57.7)
14 (43.8)
NS
Salvage therapy
72 (46.8)
47 (42)
18 (56)
NS
Multiple applications of HP
42 (27.3)
27 (24.3)
5 (15.6)
NS
Definite hemostatic therapies after HP failure
Coiling
13 (8.4)
11 (9.9)
1 (3.1)
NS
Surgery
9 (5.8)
7 (6.3)
1 (3.1)
NS
Short term success (total)
125 (81.2)
92 (82.9)
26 (81.2)
NS
Primary therapy
67/82 (81.7)
53/64 (82.8)
11/14 (78.6)
Salvage therapy
58/72 (80.6)
39/47 (82.9)
15/18 (83.3)
Long term success
81/121 (66.9)
59 (69.4)
18 (66.7)
NS
Primary therapy
45/65 (69.2)
35/49 (71.4)
8/13 (61.5)
Salvage therapy
36/56 (64.3)
24/36 (66.7)
10/14 (71.4)
Re-bleeding rate
41 (26.6)
27 (24.3)
8 (25)
NS
Primary therapy
18/82 (21.9)
13/64 (20.3)
3/14 (21.4)
Salvage therapy
23/72 (31.9)
14/47 (29.8)
5/18 (27.8)
Table 2 Clinical characteristics of the patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding and efficacy of hemostatic powders in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding n (%)
HS and EC (n = 137)
Hemospray (n = 102)
Endoclot (n = 25)
P value
Sex (M)
86 (62.8)
68 (66.7)
11 (44)
0.04
Age, yr
mean ± SD
66.4 ± 14.2
66.4 ± 14.0
67.9 ± 16.5
NS
range
(11-93)
29-93
11-89
Rockall risk score
NS
median ± SD
7.1 ±1.7
7.1 ± 1.7
7.1 ± 1.8
range
2-10
2 -10
2 - 10
Comorbidities
Coagulopathy
45 (32.8)
34 (33)
5 (2)
Renal insufficiency
68 (49.6)
59 (49)
12 (48)
Hemodialysis
32 (23.4)
24 (23)
12 (48)
Liver cirrhosis
38 (27.7)
30 (29.4)
5 (20)
Therapeutic anticoagulation
35 (25.5)
28 (27.5)
6 (24)
Dual antiplatet therapy
7 (5.1)
5 (5)
2 (8)
Vitamin K antagonists
14 (10.2)
11 (11)
3 (12)
DOAC
8 (5.8)
7 (7)
1 (4)
Antiaggregation therapy
29 (21.2)
21 (20.6)
7 (28)
Application as
NS
Primary Therapy
72 (52.6)
59 (58)
10 (40)
Salvage Therapy
65 (47.4)
43 (42)
15 (60)
Multiple Applications of
NS
HS
37 (27)
24 (23)
3 (0.12)
Definite hemostatic therapies after HP failure
NS
Coiling
13 (9.5)
11 (11)
1 (4)
Surgery
8 (5.8)
7 (6.9)
0
Short term success (total)
113/137 (82.5)
68/102 (66.6)
21/25 (84)
NS
Primary therapy
60/72 (83.3)
50/59 (84.7)
8/10 (80)
Salvage therapy
53/65 (81.5)
36/43 (83.7)
13/15 (86.6)
Long term success
71/108 (65.7)
53/78 (67.9)
15/22 (68.2)
NS
Primary therapy
39/57 (68.4)
32/45 (71)
6/10 (60)
Salvage therapy
32/51 (62.7)
21/33(63.6)
9/12 (75)
Re-bleeding rate
34/137 (24.8)
24/102 (23.5)
4/25 (16)
NS
Primary therapy
15/72 (20.8)
11/59 (18.6)
2/10 (20)
Salvage therapy
19/65 (29.2)
13/43 (30.2)
2/15 (13)
Table 3 Etiology of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and success in bleeding management (short term, long term, re-bleeding rate)
HS and EC (n = 137)
Hemospray (n = 102)
Endoclot (n = 25)
Reflux esophagitis, n
17
16
1
Overall ST, LT, RBR (%)
92, 60, 0
100, 33, 0
100, 0, 0
Primary ST, LT, RR (%)
100, 100, 0
100, 100, 0
0
Salvage ST, LT, RR (%)
100, 100, 0
100, 100, 0
100, 0, 0
OG variceal disease, n
13
11
2
Overall ST, LT, RBR (%)
85, 56, 38
91, 50, 45
100, 100, 0
Primary ST, LT, RBR (%)
75, 25, 75
66, 66, 100
100, 100, 0
Salvage ST, LT, RBR (%)
100, 80, 22
100, 80, 25
100, 0, 0
Peptic ulcer disease, n
49
34
12
Overall ST, LT, RBR (%)
80, 57, 34
80, 59, 29
84, 50, 31
Primary ST, LT, RBR (%)
79, 67, 21
81, 71, 18
75, 50, 25
Salvage ST, LT, RBR (%)
81, 67, 46
78, 40, 50
90, 62,3 0
Angiodysplasia, -ectasia, n
8
6
1
Overall ST, LT, RBR (%)
75, 85, 0
66, 80, 0
100, 100,0
Primary ST, LT, RBR (%)
75, 100, 0
75, 100, 0
0
Salvage ST, LT, RBR (%)
75, 75, 0
50, 50, 0
100, 100, 0
Diffuse bleeding and erosions, n
22
16
4
Overall ST, LT, RBR (%)
77, 72, 36
87, 84, 25
66, 66, 33
Primary ST, LT, RBR (%)
78, 67, 33
100, 100, 0
75, 50, 25
Salvage ST, LT, RBR (%)
66, 70, 58
71, 66, 57
100, 50, 50
Cancer bleeding, n
15
12
1
Overall ST, LT, RBR (%)
81, 85, 10
85, 92, 10
100, 100, 0
Primary ST, LT, RBR (%)
100, 100, 0
100, 100, 0
100, 100, 0
Salvage ST, LT, RRB (%)
67, 50, 0
67, 75, 17
0
Other bleeding sources, n
13
7
4
Overall ST, LT, RBR (%)
70, 70, 40
75, 58, 58
86, 75, 28
Primary ST, LT, RBR (%)
62, 60, 50
50, 43, 62
80, 67, 20
Salvage ST, LT, RBR (%)
77, 69, 36
100, 100, 0
100, 75, 30
Table 4 Clinical characteristics of the patients treated with Hemospray and Endoclot for lower gastrointestinal bleeding n (%)
HS and EC (n = 17)
Hemospray (n = 9)
Endoclot (n = 7)
P value
Sex (M)
15
8
6
ns
Age, yr
0.007
mean ± SD
67.8 ± 12.2
72.9 ± 9.2
65.6 ± 9.2
range
37-81
51-81
37-76
Application as
ns
Primary therapy
10 (59)
5 (55)
4 (57.1)
Salvage therapy
7 (41.2)
4 (44)
3 (56)
Definite therapy after HP failure
ns
Coiling
0
0
0
Surgery
1 (5.9)
0
1 (14)
Comorbidities
Coagulopathy
3 (17.6)
2 (22)
1 (14)
Renal insufficiency
6 (35.3)
3 (33)
3 (43)
Hemodialysis
3 (17.6)
2 (22)
1 (14)
Liver cirrhosis
2 (11.8)
2 (22)
0
Therapeutic anticoagulation
10 (59)
3 (33)
6 (86)
Dual antiplatet therapy
1 (5.9)
0
1 (43)
Vitamin K Antagonists
3 (17.6)
0
3 (43)
DOAC
3 (17.6)
0
2 (29)
Antiaggregation therapy
5 (29.4)
2 (22)
3 (43)
Short term success
12 (79.6)
6 (67)
5 (71)
ns
Primary therapy
7 (70)
3/5 (60)
3/4 (75)
Salvage therapy
5 (71.4)
3/4 (75)
2/3 (67)
Long term success
10 (76.9)
6/7 (86)
3/5 (75)
ns
Primary therapy
6 (75)
3/4(75)
2/3 (67)
Salvage therapy
4 (57.1)
3/3 (100)
1/2 (50)
Re-bleeding rate
7 (41.2)
3 (33)
4 (57)
ns
Primary therapy
3 (30)
2/5 (40)
1/4 (25)
Salvage therapy
4 (57.1)
1/4 (25)
3/3 (100)
Citation: Vitali F, Naegel A, Atreya R, Zopf S, Neufert C, Siebler J, Neurath MF, Rath T. Comparison of Hemospray® and Endoclot™ for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding. World J Gastroenterol 2019; 25(13): 1592-1602