ArticleClinical endoscopy2024
Current status and clinical outcome of endoscopic hemostatic powder in gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective multicenter study.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hourly Blood Urea Nitrogen Trajectories and ICU Mortality Risk in Critically Ill Patients with Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Endoscopic hemostatic powder as a salvage treatment for acute gastrointestinal bleeding.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsFew multicenter studies have investigated the efficacy of hemostatic powders in gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of hemostatic powder therapy and the independent factors affecting rebleeding rates.
methodsWe retrospectively recruited patients who underwent a new hemostatic adhesive powder (UI-EWD; Next-Biomedical) treatment for upper and lower GI bleeding between January 1, 2020 and March 1, 2023. We collected patients' medical records and bleeding lesions. The primary outcomes were clinical and technical success rates, and the secondary outcomes were early, delayed, and refractory bleeding, mortality, and factors affecting early rebleeding rates.
resultsThis study enrolled 135 patients (age: 67.7±13.6 years, male: 74.1%) from five hospitals. Indications for UI-EWD were peptic ulcers (51.1%), post-procedure-related bleeding (23.0%), and tumor bleeding (19.3%). The clinical and technical success rates were both 97%. The early, delayed, and refractory rebleeding rates were 19.3%, 11.1%, and 12.8%, respectively. Initially elevated blood urea nitrogen (BUN) levels (p=0.014) and Forrest classification IA or IB compared with IIA or IIB (p=0.036) were factors affecting early rebleeding.
conclusionsUI-EWD showed high clinical and technical success rates; however, rebleeding after UI-EWD therapy in patients with initially high BUN levels and active bleeding, according to the Forrest classification, should be considered.
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.