Hemostatic spray (TC-325) vs. standard endoscopic therapy for non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Division of Digestive Diseases, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States. Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska, United States. Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of Utah Health School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. Department of Internal Medicine, PSG Institute of Medical Science, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Department of Medicine, Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, New York, United States. Department of Internal Medicine, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Saginaw, Michigan, United States. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States. Gastroenterology Unit, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy. Center for Advanced Therapeutic Endoscopy, Centura Health, Denver, Colorado, United States.

Endoscopy international open. 2023;11(3):E288-e295
Full text from:

Other resources

Background and study aims  Hemospray (TC-325) is a mineral powder with adsorptive properties designed for use in various gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) scenarios. We conducted a systematic review & meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TC-325 to standard endoscopic therapy (SET) for non-variceal GIB (NVGIB). Methods  Multiple databases were searched through October 2022. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to determine pooled relative risk (RR) and proportions with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for primary hemostasis, hemostasis failure, 30-day rebleeding, length of stay (LOS), and need for rescue interventions. Heterogeneity was assessed using I (2) %. Results  Five RCTs with 362 patients (TC-325 178, SET 184) - 123 females and 239 males with a mean age 65 ± 16 years). The most common etiologies were peptic ulcer disease (48 %), malignancies (35 %), and others (17 %). Bleeding was characterized as Forrest IA (7 %), IB (73 %), IIA (3 %), and IIB (1 %). SET included epinephrine injection, electrocautery, hemoclips, or a combination. No statistical difference in primary hemostasis between TC-325 compared to SET, RR 1.09 (CI 0.95-1.25; I (2) 43), P =  0.2, including patients with oozing/spurting hemorrhage, RR 1.13 (CI 0.98-1.3; I (2) 35), P =  0.08. Failure to achieve hemostasis was higher in SET compared to TC-325, RR 0.30 (CI 0.12-0.77, I (2) 0), P =  0.01, including patients with oozing/spurting hemorrhage, RR 0.24 (CI 0.09 - 0.63, I (2) 0), P =  0.004. We found no difference between the two interventions in terms of rebleeding, RR 1.13 (CI 0.62-2.07, I (2) 26), P =  0.8 and LOS, standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.27 (CI, -0.20-0.74; I (2) 62), P =  0.3. Finally, pooled rate of rescue interventions (angiography) was statistically higher in SET compared to TC-325, RR 0.68 (CI 0.5-0.94; I (2) 0), P =  0.02. Conclusions  Our analysis shows that for acute NV GIB, including oozing/spurting hemorrhage, TC-325 does not result in higher rates of primary hemostasis compared to SET. However, lower rates of failures were seen with TC-325 than SET. In addition, there was no difference in the two modalities when comparing rates of rebleeding and LOS.
Study details
Study Design : Systematic Review
Language : eng
Credits : Bibliographic data from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine