ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
Novel use of synthetic peptide hemostatic gel in conjunction with EUS-guided coil injection for the treatment of gastric varices: A single-center experience.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Bleeding from gastric varices (GV) is severe and associated with high mortality. The standard endoscopic therapy, EUS-guided coil injection with cyanoacrylate glue (EUS-COIL + glue), is highly effective but carries a risk of systemic embolization. This study investigates the safety and efficacy of PuraStat, a synthetic peptide hemostatic gel that promotes clot formation without embolization risk, as an alternative injectate in conjunction with EUS-COIL. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective analysis of 9 patients who underwent EUS-COIL + PuraStat for GV treatment (active bleeding, recent bleeding, or primary prophylaxis). Technical success was defined as successful coil deployment and reduction of Doppler flow; clinical success as bleeding cessation and/or absence of bleeding at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included adverse events (AEs) and re-intervention rates during follow-up. Results: Technical and clinical success was achieved in 100% of the procedures. There were no intraprocedural AEs, and only 1 minor (Grade II) postprocedural AE was recorded (10%). No patients experienced systemic embolization. One patient (11%) experienced recurrent bleeding at 54 days. Over a mean follow-up of 289 days, 56% of patients required repeat EUS-COIL procedures. Conclusion: EUS-COIL with PuraStat is a safe and highly effective treatment for GV in this small cohort, demonstrating excellent immediate success without the risk of systemic embolization associated with cyanoacrylate glue. While its use may necessitate earlier and more frequent surveillance and re-intervention, its superior safety profile makes it an attractive option. Larger comparative studies are warranted.
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.