Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26082803›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2015

Hemostatic powder spray: a new method for managing gastrointestinal bleeding.

Kinesh Changela, Haris Papafragkakis, Emmanuel Ofori, Mel A Ona, Mahesh Krishnaiah, Sushil Duddempudi, Sury Anand

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. UEG Week 2019 Poster Presentations.United European gastroenterology journal · 2019
    Article
  14. [Treatment of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: endoluminal-endovascular-surgical].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2019
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. [Neoadjuvant therapy for tumors of the upper gastrointestinal tract : Complication management].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2015
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kinesh ChangelaDivision of Gastroenterology, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, 121 DeKalb Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA.
Haris PapafragkakisDivision of Gastroenterology, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Emmanuel OforiDivision of Gastroenterology, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Mel A OnaDivision of Gastroenterology, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Mahesh KrishnaiahDivision of Gastroenterology, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Sushil DuddempudiDivision of Gastroenterology, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Sury AnandDivision of Gastroenterology, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Brooklyn Hospital Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gastrointestinal bleeding is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The management of gastrointestinal bleeding is often challenging, depending on its location and severity. To date, widely accepted hemostatic treatment options include injection of epinephrine and tissue adhesives such as cyanoacrylate, ablative therapy with contact modalities such as thermal coagulation with heater probe and bipolar hemostatic forceps, noncontact modalities such as photodynamic therapy and argon plasma coagulation, and mechanical hemostasis with band ligation, endoscopic hemoclips, and over-the-scope clips. These approaches, albeit effective in achieving hemostasis, are associated with a 5-10% rebleeding risk. New simple, effective, universal, and safe methods are needed to address some of the challenges posed by the current endoscopic hemostatic techniques. The use of a novel hemostatic powder spray appears to be effective and safe in controlling upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Although initial reports of hemostatic powder spray as an innovative approach to manage gastrointestinal bleeding are promising, further studies are needed to support and confirm its efficacy and safety. The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility, clinical efficacy, and safety of hemostatic powder spray (Hemospray, Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA) as a new method for managing gastrointestinal bleeding. In this review article, we performed an extensive literature search summarizing case reports and case series of Hemospray for the management of gastrointestinal bleeding. Indications, features, technique, deployment, success rate, complications, and limitations are discussed. The combined technical and clinical success rate of Hemospray was 88.5% (207/234) among the human subjects and 81.8% (9/11) among the porcine models studied. Rebleeding occurred within 72 hours post-treatment in 38 patients (38/234; 16.2%) and in three porcine models (3/11; 27.3%). No procedure-related adverse events were associated with the use of Hemospray. Hemospray appears to be a safe and effective approach in the management of gastrointestinal bleeding.

Indexed as

gastrointestinal bleedingHemosprayhemostatic powder spray

Identifiers

PMID26082803
PMCPMC4454021
OpenAlexW2009655815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.