Search

Background and Aim: Upper gastrointestinal tumors account for 5% of upper gastrointestinal bleeds. These patients are challenging to treat due to the diffuse nature of the neoplastic bleeding lesions, high rebleeding rates, and significant transfusion requirements. TC-325 (Cook Medical, North Carolina, USA) is a hemostatic powder for gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of this study was to examine the outcomes of upper gastrointestinal bleeds secondary to tumors treated with Hemospray therapy. Methods: Data were prospectively collected on the use of Hemospray from 17 centers. Hemospray was used during emergency endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeds secondary to tumors at the discretion of the endoscopist as a monotherapy, dual therapy with standard hemostatic techniques, or rescue therapy. Results: One hundred and five patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeds secondary to tumors were recruited. The median Blatchford score at baseline was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 7–12). The median Rockall score was 8 (IQR, 7–9). Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 102/105 (97%) patients, 15% of patients had a 30-day rebleed, 20% of patients died within 30 days (all-cause mortality). There was a significant improvement in transfusion requirements following treatment (P

INTRODUCTION: With increasing advances in minimally invasive endoscopic therapies and endoscopic resection techniques for luminal disease, there is an increased risk of post-procedure bleeding. This can contribute to significant burden on patient’s quality of life and health resources when reintervention is required. Hemospray (Cook Medical, North Carolina, USA) is a novel haemostatic powder licensed for gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of this single-arm, prospective, non-randomised multicentre international study is to look at outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeds following elective endoscopic therapy treated with Hemospray to achieve haemostasis. METHODS: Data was prospectively collected on the use of Hemospray from 16 centres (January 2016–November 2019). Hemospray was used during the presence of progressive intraprocedural bleeding post-endoscopic therapy as a monotherapy, dual therapy with standard haemostatic techniques or rescue therapy once standard methods had failed. Haemostasis was defined as the cessation of bleeding within 5 min of the application of Hemospray. Re-bleeding was defined as a sustained drop in haemoglobin (>2 g/l), haematemesis or melaena with haemodynamic instability after the index endoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 73 patients were analysed with bleeding post-endoscopic therapy. The median Blatchford score at baseline was five (interquartile range 0–9). The median Rockall score was six (interquartile range 5–7). Immediate haemostasis following the application of Hemospray was achieved in 73/73 (100%) of patients. Two out of 57 (4%) had a re-bleed post-Hemospray, one was following oesophageal endoscopic mucosal resection and the other post-duodenal endoscopic mucosal resection. Both patients had a repeat endoscopy and therapy within 24 h. Re-bleeding data was missing for 16 patients, and mortality data was missing for 14 patients. There were no adverse events recorded in association with the use of Hemospray. CONCLUSION: Hemospray is safe and effective in achieving immediate haemostasis following uncontrolled and progressive intraprocedural blood loss post-endoscopic therapy, with a low re-bleed rate.

Background and aim Acute gastrointestinal bleeding carries poor outcomes unless prompt endoscopic hemostasis is achieved. Mortality in these patients remains significant. Hemospray is a novel intervention that creates a mechanical barrier over bleeding sites. We report the largest dataset of patient outcomes after treatment with Hemospray from an international multicenter registry. Patients and methods Prospective data (Jan 2016-May 2018) from 12 centers across Europe were collected. Immediate hemostasis was defined as endoscopic cessation of bleeding within 5 min after application of Hemospray. Rebleeding was defined as subsequent drop in hemoglobin, hematemesis, persistent melena with hemodynamic compromise post-therapy. Results Three hundred and fourteen cases were recruited worldwide (231 males, 83 females). Median pretreatment Blatchford score was 11 (IQR: 8-14) and median complete Rockall score (RS) was 7 (IQR: 6-8) for all patients. Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) was the most common pathology (167/314 = 53%) and Forrest Ib the most common bleed type in PUD (100/167 = 60%). 281 patients (89.5%) achieved immediate hemostasis after successful endoscopic therapy with Hemospray. Rebleeding occurred in 29 (10.3%) of the 281 patients who achieved immediate hemostasis. Seven-day and 30-day all-cause mortality were 11.5% (36/314) and 20.1% (63/314), respectively (lower than the predicted rates as per the RS). Similar hemostasis rates were noted in the Hemospray monotherapy (92.4%), combination therapy (88.7%) and rescue therapy (85.5%) groups. Conclusions These data show high rates of immediate hemostasis overall and in all subgroups. Rebleeding and mortality rates were in keeping/lower than predicted rates.

BACKGROUND: Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is associated with a poor prognosis. In HRS type 1, loss of renal function is rapidly progressive, while HRS type 2 is characterised by chronic ascites and more moderately elevated renal parameters. While treatment with terlipressin/albumin is well established in type 1, its effectiveness in chronic HRS is less clear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of terlipressin/albumin treatment in patients with HRS type 2. METHODS: All patients with a first episode of HRS between April 2013 and February 2016 were included in this observational study. Relevant clinical and laboratory parameters were recorded and patients were followed. RESULTS: A total of 106 patients with HRS were included. With terlipressin therapy reversal of HRS types 1 and 2 was achieved in 48% and 46% of patients (p = 0.84) with relapse rates of 8% vs 50% (p = 0.001). Overall survival (OS) and survival free of liver transplantation (LTx) were similar in HRS types 1 and 2 (p = 0.69; p = 0.64). In multivariate analysis response to treatment was independently associated with better OS in HRS type 2, in addition to established risk factors such as lower Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, absence of hepatic encephalopathy and eligibility for LTx. CONCLUSION: A terlipressin treatment course seems to be justified in selected patients with HRS type 2, especially in countries and settings with long transplant waiting lists. In addition treatment response might also help to identify HRS type 2 patients with a more favourable outcome.