Comparison of TC-325 Hemostatic Powder with Standard Endoscopic Treatments for Malignancy-Related Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: TC-325 powder has been successfully used in the management of malignancy-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) with favorable results. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TC-325 hemostatic powder with standard endoscopic treatments in the management of malignancy-related UGIB.
Methods: Several databases were reviewed from inception to May 02, 2024 to identify RCTs comparing TC-325 and standard endoscopic treatments for the management of malignancy-related UGIB. Our outcomes of interest were immediate hemostasis, 30-day rebleeding, length of hospital stay, need for surgery, need for angiographic embolization, and all-cause mortality. We calculated pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for categorical variables and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous variables. We used a random effect model to analyze the data and heterogeneity was assessed by I ² statistic.
Results: Four RCTs with 227 patients were included. We found that, the rate of immediate hemostasis was significantly higher in the TC-325 group compared to the standard therapy group, RR (95% CI): 1.48 (1.26, 1.74). There was no significant difference in 30-day rebleeding between the groups RR (95% CI): 0.52 (0.15, 1.76). We found no significant difference in other outcomes between groups such as the need for angiographic embolization, all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, and need for surgery.
Conclusions: We found that, TC-325 hemostatic powder was superior to standard endoscopic treatments in achieving immediate hemostasis in patients with malignancy-related UGIB.
Competing Interests: Declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.
(© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)