Historical cohort study evaluates Hemospray for immediate bleeding control post endoscopic sphincterotomy, suggesting improved outcomes.
Background and aim To evaluate the feasibility and short-term safety of Hemospray as first-line hemostatic therapy for immediate post-endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) bleeding using a standardized papillary application protocol, and to compare outcomes with a historical balloon-tamponade group. Methods The primary outcome was initial endoscopic hemostasis after first-line therapy. Key secondary outcomes were 30-day rebleeding, overall endoscopic hemostasis, rescue-device use, adverse events within 7 days, and exploratory device-cost comparison. Primary analyses included all eligible patients, categorized according to the first-line hemostatic therapy actually received, irrespective of subsequent rescue therapy. Results Among 1,666 EST procedures, 66 bleeding episodes required endoscopic hemostasis and were included (Hemospray, 25/498 [5.0%]; balloon tamponade, 41/1,168 [3.5%]); 21 episodes of self-limited oozing were excluded. Initial hemostasis was achieved more often with Hemospray than with balloon tamponade (96.0% vs 73.2%; risk difference 22.8%, 95% CI 4.3–41.4; P=0.023). Firth-penalized multivariable analysis supported this direction (adjusted odds ratio 7.7, 95% CI 1.5–84.2; P=0.013), although precision was limited by quasi-separation. In the propensity-score–matched analysis (20 pairs), initial hemostasis remained numerically higher with Hemospray (95.0% vs 80.0%; P=0.375). Overall endoscopic hemostasis was achieved in all patients. All rebleeding occurred within 24 hours and was numerically more frequent with Hemospray (12.0% vs 2.4%; P=0.14), with no additional events through 30 days. Adverse events occurred in 12.0% vs 22.0% (P=0.36). Conclusions A standardized Hemospray-first protocol was associated with improved initial bleeding control and reduced rescue-device use in persistent non-pulsatile post-EST oozing. However, overall endoscopic hemostasis was identical between groups, and hemostatic durability remains uncertain.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sagawa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: