Hazem Abosheaishaa, Abdallfatah Abdallfatah, Omar T Ahmed, Khaled Elfert, Islam Mohamed, Iyiad AlabdulRazzak, Monzer Abdalla, Arshia Sethi, Omar Abdelhalim, Vijay Reddy Gayam, Saphwat Eskaros, Brian Boulay
{"title":"血液喷雾剂在处理胃肠道肿瘤相关出血方面的疗效:系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Hazem Abosheaishaa, Abdallfatah Abdallfatah, Omar T Ahmed, Khaled Elfert, Islam Mohamed, Iyiad AlabdulRazzak, Monzer Abdalla, Arshia Sethi, Omar Abdelhalim, Vijay Reddy Gayam, Saphwat Eskaros, Brian Boulay","doi":"10.1097/MEG.0000000000002828","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding stemming from malignant tumors is increasingly recognized, due to advancements in oncology and detection methods. Traditional endoscopic hemostatic techniques have shown variable success rates in managing hemorrhagic GI neoplasms. Hemospray, an emerging endoscopic hemostatic powder, offers promise in treating upper GI bleeding, potentially extending its utility to neoplastic bleeding sites. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate Hemospray's efficacy in managing bleeding related to GI tumors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Medline/PubMed, and Cochrane. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies focusing on malignancy-related GI bleeding and interventions utilizing Hemospray. Comparative studies contrasted Hemospray with standard endoscopic treatments (SET), while noncomparative studies assessed Hemospray's efficacy independently. The risk of bias was assessed using appropriate tools, and statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager and open Meta analyst software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 19 studies in our meta-analysis. Hemospray demonstrated higher rates of immediate hemostasis compared to SET (odds ratio: 17.14, 95% confidence interval: 4.27-68.86), with consistent outcomes across studies. Rebleeding rates at 14 and 30 days were comparable between Hemospray and SET groups, suggesting similar efficacy in long-term hemostasis. Hemospray showed a significantly lower need for nonendoscopic hemostasis compared to SET (odds ratio: 0.51, 95% confidence interval: 0.30-0.87), indicating a potential reduction in supplementary interventions. Safety assessments revealed no confirmed adverse events directly linked to Hemospray.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis highlights Hemospray's efficacy in achieving immediate hemostasis in GI tumor-related bleeding, with potential benefits in reducing supplementary interventions and improving patient outcomes. Despite comparable rebleeding rates, Hemospray emerges as a valuable adjunctive therapy in managing malignant GI bleeding.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The efficacy of Hemospray in managing bleeding related to gastrointestinal tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Hazem Abosheaishaa, Abdallfatah Abdallfatah, Omar T Ahmed, Khaled Elfert, Islam Mohamed, Iyiad AlabdulRazzak, Monzer Abdalla, Arshia Sethi, Omar Abdelhalim, Vijay Reddy Gayam, Saphwat Eskaros, Brian Boulay\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MEG.0000000000002828\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding stemming from malignant tumors is increasingly recognized, due to advancements in oncology and detection methods. Traditional endoscopic hemostatic techniques have shown variable success rates in managing hemorrhagic GI neoplasms. Hemospray, an emerging endoscopic hemostatic powder, offers promise in treating upper GI bleeding, potentially extending its utility to neoplastic bleeding sites. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate Hemospray's efficacy in managing bleeding related to GI tumors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Medline/PubMed, and Cochrane. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies focusing on malignancy-related GI bleeding and interventions utilizing Hemospray. Comparative studies contrasted Hemospray with standard endoscopic treatments (SET), while noncomparative studies assessed Hemospray's efficacy independently. The risk of bias was assessed using appropriate tools, and statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager and open Meta analyst software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 19 studies in our meta-analysis. Hemospray demonstrated higher rates of immediate hemostasis compared to SET (odds ratio: 17.14, 95% confidence interval: 4.27-68.86), with consistent outcomes across studies. Rebleeding rates at 14 and 30 days were comparable between Hemospray and SET groups, suggesting similar efficacy in long-term hemostasis. Hemospray showed a significantly lower need for nonendoscopic hemostasis compared to SET (odds ratio: 0.51, 95% confidence interval: 0.30-0.87), indicating a potential reduction in supplementary interventions. Safety assessments revealed no confirmed adverse events directly linked to Hemospray.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis highlights Hemospray's efficacy in achieving immediate hemostasis in GI tumor-related bleeding, with potential benefits in reducing supplementary interventions and improving patient outcomes. Despite comparable rebleeding rates, Hemospray emerges as a valuable adjunctive therapy in managing malignant GI bleeding.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000002828\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000002828","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导言:由于肿瘤学和检测方法的进步,恶性肿瘤引起的胃肠道(GI)出血越来越受到重视。传统的内窥镜止血技术在治疗出血性消化道肿瘤方面的成功率参差不齐。Hemospray是一种新兴的内镜止血粉,有望治疗上消化道出血,并有可能将其应用扩展到肿瘤出血部位。本荟萃分析旨在评估 Hemospray 在治疗消化道肿瘤相关出血方面的疗效:我们检索了 Embase、Scopus、Web of Science、Medline/PubMed 和 Cochrane。纳入标准包括与恶性肿瘤相关的消化道出血以及使用 Hemospray 进行干预的研究。比较性研究将 Hemospray 与标准内镜治疗 (SET) 进行对比,而非比较性研究则独立评估 Hemospray 的疗效。我们使用适当的工具评估了偏倚风险,并使用Review Manager和open Meta analyst软件进行了统计分析:我们在荟萃分析中纳入了 19 项研究。与 SET 相比,血浆喷雾剂的即时止血率更高(几率比:17.14,95% 置信区间:4.27-68.86),各研究的结果一致。Hemospray 组和 SET 组在 14 天和 30 天后的再出血率相当,这表明两者在长期止血方面具有相似的疗效。与 SET 相比,Hemospray 的非内镜止血需求明显降低(几率比:0.51,95% 置信区间:0.30-0.87),这表明辅助干预措施可能会减少。安全性评估显示,没有经证实的不良事件与 Hemospray 直接相关:这项荟萃分析强调了 Hemospray 在消化道肿瘤相关出血中实现即时止血的功效,在减少辅助干预和改善患者预后方面具有潜在益处。尽管再出血率不相上下,但 Hemospray 仍是治疗恶性消化道出血的重要辅助疗法。
The efficacy of Hemospray in managing bleeding related to gastrointestinal tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Introduction: Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding stemming from malignant tumors is increasingly recognized, due to advancements in oncology and detection methods. Traditional endoscopic hemostatic techniques have shown variable success rates in managing hemorrhagic GI neoplasms. Hemospray, an emerging endoscopic hemostatic powder, offers promise in treating upper GI bleeding, potentially extending its utility to neoplastic bleeding sites. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate Hemospray's efficacy in managing bleeding related to GI tumors.
Methods: We searched Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Medline/PubMed, and Cochrane. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies focusing on malignancy-related GI bleeding and interventions utilizing Hemospray. Comparative studies contrasted Hemospray with standard endoscopic treatments (SET), while noncomparative studies assessed Hemospray's efficacy independently. The risk of bias was assessed using appropriate tools, and statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager and open Meta analyst software.
Results: We included 19 studies in our meta-analysis. Hemospray demonstrated higher rates of immediate hemostasis compared to SET (odds ratio: 17.14, 95% confidence interval: 4.27-68.86), with consistent outcomes across studies. Rebleeding rates at 14 and 30 days were comparable between Hemospray and SET groups, suggesting similar efficacy in long-term hemostasis. Hemospray showed a significantly lower need for nonendoscopic hemostasis compared to SET (odds ratio: 0.51, 95% confidence interval: 0.30-0.87), indicating a potential reduction in supplementary interventions. Safety assessments revealed no confirmed adverse events directly linked to Hemospray.
Conclusion: This meta-analysis highlights Hemospray's efficacy in achieving immediate hemostasis in GI tumor-related bleeding, with potential benefits in reducing supplementary interventions and improving patient outcomes. Despite comparable rebleeding rates, Hemospray emerges as a valuable adjunctive therapy in managing malignant GI bleeding.