Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2020
Randomized controlled trial of hemostatic powder versus endoscopic clipping for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- One in four patients with gastrointestinal bleeding develops shock or hemodynamic instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Pooled it
- Management of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Guideline Recommendations From the International Consensus Group.Annals of internal medicine · 2019Guideline
- Precise and optimal delivery techniques of hemostatic powders in gastrointestinal bleeding.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Efficacy of hemostatic powder for non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Advancing hemostasis: A meta-analysis of novelWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Efficacy and applications for PuraStatWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Current status and clinical outcome of endoscopic hemostatic powder in gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective multicenter study.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Review
- Endoscopic management of postoperative bleeding.Clinical endoscopy · 2023Review
- Topical hemostatic agents in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2023Article
- Hemostatic spray (TC-325) vs. standard endoscopic therapy for non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Endoscopy international open · 2023Review
- Modification of the endoscopic hemostatic powder application technique.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2023Article
- Hemostatic Powders in Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: The Open Questions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- An update on the management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Gastroenterology report · 2023Review
- A Challenging Case of Jejunal Dieulafoy's Lesion: A Rare Cause of Refractory Lower-Gastrointestinal Bleeding.The American journal of case reports · 2022Article
- Hemostatic powders for gastrointestinal bleeding: a review of old, new, and emerging agents in a rapidly advancing field.Endoscopy international open · 2022Review
- Hemostasis Techniques for Non-variceal Upper GI Hemorrhage: Beyond Injection and Cautery.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Review
- New Trends and Advances in Non-Variceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding-Series II.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Novel endoscopic papillectomy for reducing postoperative adverse events (with videos).World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Article
- New Techniques to Control Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsDespite advances in pharmacological and endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB), mortality is still relevant. TC-325 (Hemospray-Cook Medical) is a mineral powder with adsorptive properties, designed for endoscopic hemostasis. There are still no comparative trials studying this new hemostatic modality. The objective of this research was to compare the use of TC-325 (associated with epinephrine injection) with the combined technique of endoscopic clipping and epinephrine injection for the treatment of patients with NVUGIB.
methodsWe conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial with patients that presented NVUGIB with an actively bleeding lesion at the endoscopic evaluation. Patients were randomized either to the Hemospray or Hemoclip group. The randomization list was generated by a computer program and remained unknown throughout the entire trial. All patients underwent second-look endoscopy.
resultsThirty-nine patients were enrolled. Peptic ulcer was the most frequent etiology. Primary hemostasis was achieved in all Hemospray cases and in 90% of Hemoclip group (p = 0.487). Five patients in Hemospray group underwent an additional hemostatic procedure during second-look endoscopy, while no patient in the Hemoclip group needed it (p = 0.04). Rebleeding, emergency surgery and mortality rates were similar in both groups. No toxicity, allergy events, or gastrointestinal obstruction signs were observed in Hemospray group.
conclusionsTC-325 presents similar hemostatic results when compared with conventional dual therapy for patients with NVUGIB. Hemospray's excellent primary hemostasis rate certifies it as a valuable tool in arduous situations of severe bleeding or difficult location site.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.