ABSTRACT Background and Aim The effectiveness of standard endoscopic treatment (SET) for non‐variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) may vary, particularly depending on the bleeding site, lesion size, and etiology. Recent studies suggest that hemostatic powder (HP) may effectively control bleeding secondary to malignant upper gastrointestinal lesions, but its efficacy in benign etiology for NVUGIB remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of HP versus SET as first‐line therapy for patients with non‐malignant causes of NVUGIB. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to January 2025. We used risk ratios (RR) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results We included 5 RCTs (708 patients). Compared to SET, HP was associated with marginally lower risk of further bleeding during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (RR 1.04; 95% CI 1.001, 1.084; p = 0.04) and similar rebleeding rate within 1, 3, 7, 15, and 30 days. The need for a second endoscopic treatment and the mean procedure time were similar between the groups. Subgroup analyses showed that HP has a lower risk of further bleeding during EGD only when analyzing Forrest IIa lesions, but not in active bleeding. Conclusions In patients with non‐malignant NVUGIB, HP demonstrated lower risk of further bleeding during EGD in cases with non‐bleeding visible vessels. There was no statistically significant difference in further bleeding during EGD for active bleeding, nor in rebleeding risk at 1, 3, 7, 15, or 30 days.
Santo et al. (Fri,) studied this question.