Hemostatic spray (TC-325) vs. standard endoscopic therapy for non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Endoscopy international open. 2023;11(3):E288-e295
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.