Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy

Search
Advanced Search
OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 57(4); 2024 > Article
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Systematic review of self-assembling peptides as topical agents for treatment and prevention of gastrointestinal bleeding
Andrei Voiosuorcid, Monica State,orcid, Victor Drăganorcid, Sergiu Văduvaorcid, Paul Bălănescuorcid, Radu Bogdan Mateescuorcid, Theodor Voiosuorcid
Clinical Endoscopy 2024;57(4):454-465.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2023.168
Published online: May 24, 2024

Gastroenterology Department, Colentina Clinical Hospital, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania

Correspondence: Monica State Gastroenterology Department, Colentina Clinical Hospital, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Stefan cel Mare Boulevard 19-21, 020125 București, Romania E-mail: monicastate4@gmail.com
• Received: July 4, 2023   • Revised: September 28, 2023   • Accepted: September 30, 2023

© 2024 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 3,237 Views
  • 188 Download
prev next
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Background/Aims
    Gastrointestinal bleeding is a significant and potentially lethal event. We aimed to review the efficiency and safety of self-assembling peptides for the treatment and prevention of gastrointestinal tract bleeding.
  • Methods
    We conducted a systematic search for studies describing the endoscopic use of self-assembling peptides for treatment or prevention of bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract in a parallel, independent fashion. The primary outcomes were rates of successful initial hemostasis, delayed bleeding, and rebleeding. The secondary outcomes were adverse events and ease and volume of gel used.
  • Results
    Seventeen studies were analyzed. Overall success rate of self-assembling peptides in gastrointestinal bleeding was 87.7% (38%–100%), regardless of etiology or associated treatments. Rebleeding rate ranged from 0% to 16.2%, with a mean of 4.7%, and overall delayed bleeding rate was 5% (range, 0%–15.9%). Only three adverse events were reported in a pooled number of 815 patients. The volume of gel used varied (0.43 to 3.7 mL) according to indication and type of bleeding.
  • Conclusions
    The limited available data on the use of self-assembling peptides in gastrointestinal endoscopy suggest a high efficiency and good safety profile.
  • Keywords: Hemostatic; Gel; PuraStat; Self-assembling peptide; TDM-621
Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a clinically significant and potentially lethal event. Endoscopic intervention is indicated in the vast majority of cases, and a wide range of techniques and devices have demonstrated its efficacy and safety. However, rebleeding remains a frequent occurrence1 and is sometimes more difficult to treat because of previous interventions. Based on the nature of the lesion, guidelines recommend multiple endoscopic modalities to ensure effective hemostasis,2,3 and treating lesions with multiple bleeding points or diffuse bleeding can be resource-intensive.4 Moreover, the ever-expanding scope of and access to advanced therapeutic endoscopy (i.e., endo­scopic submucosal resection [ESD], hybrid resection techniques, and third space endoscopy) are associated with an increased risk of iatrogenic hemorrhagic adverse events, for which preventative action is desirable.5
In general, few therapeutic options are designed to address both acute bleeding and prevent delayed post-procedural hemorrhage, and only hemostatic clip placement has been shown to reduce delayed bleeding in the management of large polyps.6 The ideal hemostatic tool for interventional endoscopists should be easy to use, safe, and accessible; ensure immediate and prolonged hemostasis; allow wide field coverage; and be repeatedly used in the same session.
Recently, a new class of hemostatic devices in the form of proprietary, gel-forming, self-assembling peptides (SAP) has become available. Knowledge of self-assembling nanotechnology has progressed since the early 90s7,8 and led to the development of TDM-621, a sterile synthetic peptide that forms a collagen-like fibrous network upon exposure to fluids under physiological conditions.9 This network functions as a mechanical barrier, occludes bleeding points, and promotes tissue regeneration. Interest in its use as a topical hemostatic agent in various surgical settings, spanning cardiovascular surgery,6 otolaryngology,10 cervical endocrine surgery,11 and abdominal surgery,12 has grown in recent years. Under the name PuraStat (3-D Matrix Ltd.), this device has recently become commercially available and gained United States Food and Drug Administration premarket approval for use in mild and moderate bleeding post ESD or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and as prevention for post-procedural bleeding.13 However, the experience is limited, and its optimal use in the GI setting is under exploration.
We conducted a systematic review of the current data on the efficiency and safety of SAP in the treatment and prevention of bleeding in the GI tract.
The study was designed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist and registered in the PROSPERO database on November 7, 2022 (CRD42022373735).
Eligibility criteria
For the purposes of this review, all prospective and retrospective studies describing the endoscopic use of SAP for treatment or prevention of bleeding in the GI tract were eligible. Full texts and abstracts published in English were included, and animal and laboratory studies were excluded.
Literature sources and search strategy
Three investigators (VD, MS, SV) conducted a parallel, independent, exhaustive search of major electronic databases—Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, clinicaltrials.gov, and proceedings from major congresses (i.e., Digestive Disease Week, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Days, World Congress of GI Endoscopy)—on November 7, 2022. The search strategy included the following key terms: PuraStat, TDM-621, SAP, and hemostatic gel.
Duplicates were removed, and the remaining titles and abstracts were screened and reviewed for eligibility and appropriateness by three independent reviewers (VD, MS, SV). In cases of disagreement, another investigator (AV) made the final decision regarding study eligibility and inclusion. In cases where studies by the same authors had overlapping cases, we opted to include the largest and most recent series in the analysis. The final list was reviewed independently by PB and AV.
Study quality assessment
We used the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) criteria14 for cohort studies and the modified Jadad scale15 for the quality assessment of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Seven of the 17 studies were available only as abstracts, and points were assigned to categories that were explicitly presented in the study or could be inferred from the abstract.
Outcome measures
The primary outcomes were the rates of successful initial hemostasis, delayed bleeding, and rebleeding. (1) Hemostasis: endoscopically confirmed absence of bleeding after the intervention without adjunctive modalities. The initial use of another modality (e.g., thermal and adrenaline injection) that did not stop the bleeding, with subsequent intervention was allowed. (2) Rebleeding: presence of hemorrhagic signs (i.e., hematemesis, melena, hematochezia, drop in hemoglobin level, drop in blood pressure, and increased heart rate) after initial successful hemostasis. (3) Delayed bleeding: presence of hemorrhagic signs after a resection procedure employing SAP as prophylaxis.
The secondary outcomes were adverse events, ease of use, and quantity of the substance used.
Data extraction
We extracted data regarding the type of study, bleeding source (upper/lower GI tract), number of patients, number of treated lesions, type of bleeding (oozing/spurting), indication for use (prophylaxis and hemostasis), outcomes, adverse events, ease of use, quantity required to treat a lesion, and associated methods for hemostasis (injection, clipping, and diathermy).
Data analysis
We coded the data and performed a descriptive analysis using IBM SPSS for Windows ver. 20.0 (IBM Corp.). Data analysis included descriptive statistics computed for continuous variables, expressed as mean and standard deviation. Categorical variables are described as counts and percentages.
The preliminary search yielded 776 studies. Figure 1 shows the flow chart of the manuscripts included in the final analysis according to the PRISMA reporting guidelines. We excluded case reports (15 articles) and included only retrospective or prospective studies (randomized or non-randomized). Finally, after eliminating duplicates and studies by the same authors with overlapping patients, 17 studies (with 925 patients) met the inclusion criteria, as detailed in Table 1.16-32
A total of three RCTs and 14 observational studies were retrieved for full-text analysis. Of these 17 studies, 10 included patients with upper and lower GI bleeding; five, only upper GI bleeding; and two, only lower GI bleeding. Six studies reported the type of bleeding; in four studies, only oozing bleeding was treated, while two reported both oozing and spurting bleeding. The purpose of using SAP was hemostasis in nine studies, prophylaxis of delayed bleeding after resection in five studies, and both treatments for intraprocedural bleeding and post procedural prophylaxis in three studies.
RCTs compared SAP with conventional hemostasis techniques. Choi et al.25 compared the use of PuraStat with epinephrine spray in patients with post endoscopic sphincterotomy or post-papillectomy bleeding. SAP showed significantly higher successful primary hemostasis rates than epinephrine spray (100% vs. 85.4%, p=0.026). There were no significant statistical differences between the two agents in delayed bleeding (2.4% vs. 7.3%). A study conducted by Subramaniam et al.18 evaluated the reduction in the need for coagulation for bleeding control related to ESD when the PuraStat was used. The authors reported a significant reduction in the use of diathermy for intraprocedural hemostasis in the interventional group compared to controls (49.3% vs. 99.6%, p<0.001), with no significant differences in the procedure length, time for hemostasis, and delayed bleeding rate. Lastly, Uedo et al.19 investigated the efficacy of PuraStat in reducing the need for coagulation forceps in the case of oozing bleeding lasting more than 3 minutes during ESD and found that the SAP group had significantly fewer uses of forceps than the control group (1.0±1.4 vs. 4.9±5.2, p<0.001), without serious safety concerns.
The primary outcomes for studies that used SAP as a treatment for active bleeding and those employing SAP as prophylaxis against delayed bleeding are summarized in Tables 2, 3, respectively.16-18,20-30,32 We could not extract data from two out of the 12 studies reporting SAP usage for hemostasis because only their abstracts were accessible. Of the eight studies that evaluated the efficacy in preventing delayed bleeding, six followed patients for 30 days after the intervention. We could not retrieve information on follow-up from the study by Arndtz et al.16 owing to its availability only in abstract format and from the study by Uraoka et al.23 because it was not presented.
Hemostasis
The 12 studies that reported data on hemostasis included 756 patients. The overall success rate was 87.7% (38.1%–100%), regardless of bleeding etiology or associated treatments. The vast majority of the uses were for intraprocedural bleeding, both in the upper and lower digestive tracts, with success rates between 75% and 100%. Meanwhile, the success rate for achieving hemostasis was only 38.1% when SAP was employed to manage bleeding associated with radiation proctitis (Table 2).
Rebleeding rate
In the 12 studies that reported the use of PuraStat for hemostasis, the rebleeding rate was 4.7% (range, 0%–16.2%). The follow-up period from the initial hemostasis ranged from 1 to 30 days. The highest rebleeding rates were found in the studies by Branchi et al.17 (16.2%) and de Nucci et al.20 (10.3%). In a study by de Nucci et al.,20 rebleeding occurred in eight patients: two colonic cancers with oozing-type, two duodenal ulcers with spurting-type bleeding and oozing-type bleeding, one duodenal mucosal resection with oozing-type bleeding, one gastric ulcer with spurting-type bleeding, and two gastric cancers with oozing-type bleeding (Table 2).
Delayed bleeding
The mean delayed bleeding rate was 4.9% (range, 0%–15.9%), based on results from eight studies. There were 393 prophylactic applications in 495 patients, all representing EMR or ESD performed in the esophagus, stomach, duodenum, colon, or rectum, with the exception of six patients for whom it was applied for spontaneous bleeding in the upper digestive tract and 22 patients for whom it was used for radiation proctitis. The study by Soons et al.,24 which had the highest delayed bleeding rate (15.9%), included patients who underwent EMR for lesions in the esophagus, duodenum (>1 cm), and colon (>2 cm). All patients with delayed bleeding underwent piecemeal resection. In a study by Subramaniam et al.,18 delayed bleeding occurred in three patients (3%) treated for antral gastric cancers and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Pioche et al.21 reported delayed bleeding in four patients (6.1%): two following esophageal resection, one after ampullectomy, and one rectal ESD, who also needed reintroduction of heparin post-procedure. All patients were managed by an endoscopist. Uraoka et al.23 encountered a single delayed bleeding (1.9%) in a gastric resection managed during second-look endoscopy. Soons et al.24 reported delayed bleeding in seven cases (15.9%), all of which underwent piecemeal resection, and three of them used antithrombotics; one in the esophagus, four in the duodenum, and three in the colorectum. All but one were managed with hemostatic clip placement (Table 3).
Associated treatments
SAP was used as the first and only line of treatment for hemostasis in five studies (Yoshida et al.29 2014, Subramaniam et al.18 2019, Subramaniam et al.22 2021, Choi et al.25 2022, and Ishida et al.32 2022). The mean success rate of hemostasis in these five studies was 93.5%, and the average rebleeding rate was 0.6% (Table 4). When SAP was used as first line treatment followed by another complementary technique or as second line treatment, the success rate was 81.8% and the rebleeding rate was 7.8%. Among the studies that evaluated delayed bleeding prophylaxis, three used SAP as the first and only line of treatment (Subramaniam et al.22 2021, Soons et al.24 2021, and Subramaniam et al.18 2019). These had an average rebleeding rate of 7.7% at 30 days compared to 2.8% for the studies that used the SAP gel along with other adjuvant techniques (i.e., Hemospray [Cook Medical], hot diathermy forceps,21 monopolar forceps30).
High-risk patients
Data on patients considered to be at a high risk of bleeding owing to ongoing treatment with antithrombotics were available from 12 studies. Eleven studies included a total of 194 (20.9%) patients on antithrombotic medication. One study excluded patients taking anticoagulants or antifibrinolytics (Yoshida et al.29 2014).
Safety
Data regarding adverse events were explicitly reported in 14 studies with a pooled number of 815 patients. Three adverse events were recorded in total (rate, <1%): one perforation unrelated to SAP treatment (Subramaniam et al.22 2021), one case of mild elevation of uremic acid and transaminases (Yoshida et al.29 2014), and one case of hyperamylasemia after endoscopic sphincterotomy (Ishida et al.32 2022).
Technical aspects
The volume of gel required to achieve hemostasis varied according to the purpose of the intervention and the type of bleeding. Eight studies reported the volume needed for hemostasis, with a mean volume of 2.4 mL, ranging from 0.4 to 3.7 mL, and six studies reported the volume needed to prevent delayed bleeding, with a mean volume of 2.7 mL, ranging from 2.3 to 3.5 mL. Ten studies reported on the ease of PuraStat use, mainly in a qualitative fashion based on user experience and satisfaction, while three studies also mentioned the average time required for application: 69.5 seconds,20 2 minutes,21 and a median time of 2 minutes,23 respectively.
Study quality and assessment
Tables 5, 6 summarize the quality of the observational and interventional studies.16-32 Only one observational study included a comparison group,31 and most observational studies were descriptive. In addition, the quality of interventional studies was low, as two of them lacked important aspects such as details about randomization, blinding, or loss in follow-up management.
Our review indicated that SAP are an efficient and safe option for intraprocedural oozing type bleeding that occurs during endoscopic resection in the digestive tract, ensuring hemostasis in >85% of cases and a low rebleeding rate after initial successful hemostasis. Prophylaxis after EMR or ESD is easy to implement and is associated with a low delayed bleeding rate.
Classic hemostatic techniques have a wide range of efficiencies depending on the clinical context in which they are used. The most extensive data comes from peptic ulcer bleeding, where successful hemostasis can be achieved in 75% to 95.1%33-36 of cases with adrenaline injection, 81.2% to 100%35,37 with thermocoagulation, and 66.7% to 97.6%33-38 when standard hemostatic clips are employed. As shown in a Danish nationwide cohort study, the success of endoscopic treatment for this indication has improved significantly over time (94% in 2010–2011 vs. 89% in 2004–2006).39 The studies we reviewed explored SAP primarily as a hemostatic agent for intraprocedural bleeding (during EMR or ESD) or for bleeding that occurred after these resections. The commonly estimated rates of post-procedural bleeding are low and does not differ between EMR and ESD for neoplastic lesions (1.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6%–3.4%] in neoplastic Barrett’s, 5% to 10% in gastric lesions, and 2.7% in colorectal lesions).40-43 Bleeding in these cases can be treated conservatively or with endoscopic hemostasis; however, in some cases, interventional radiology or surgery is required. In our review of SAP performance for this indication, we found that hemostasis could be achieved in 87.7% of cases, with better results reported in studies where PuraStat was employed as the first and only method (93.5%) compared to those that used complementary techniques (81.8%). Furthermore, SAP application for intraprocedural bleeding appeared to reduce the need for thermal coagulation and the risk of complications. Cost considerations must also be taken into account. The healthcare costs associated with uncontrolled bleeding surpass the costs related to SAP use (e.g., 300 to 450 United States dollars (USD)44 for a mean required volume of 2.4 mL when used for hemostasis). For a 12-month period following the index date, upper gastrointestinal-related healthcare utilization and total healthcare, medical, and pharmacy costs for upper gastrointestinal bleeding are estimated to be 20,405 USD, including initial hospitalization costs of 11,228 USD.45
Any hemostatic agent used in the acute setting is evaluated according to both its immediate success and the durability of the response (i.e., rebleeding). The rate of rebleeding after initial hemostasis with SAP was 4.7%, slightly lower than that obtained with adrenaline injection (14.6%–33.3%),1-4 hemostatic powders (10.9%–14.4%),44,45 and over-the-scope clips (OTSC) clips (10.3%)46-50 and comparable to that achieved with thermal coagulation (3.7%–13.3%),4,5 or hemostatic clips (2.4%–22.2%).33-38 Most cases of rebleeding after SAP use could be treated endoscopically, and only a few required referral for surgery.
Even if a direct comparison is not feasible, the data from the analyzed studies are more robust concerning the prevention of delayed bleeding after resection techniques, such as polypectomy, EMR, or ESD. In these cases, there are abundant but conflicting data regarding the prophylactic treatment of the ulcer base with hemostatic clips, indwelling snares, overstitches, suturing, OTSCs, or various polyglycolic sheets.51-53 Delayed bleeding after prophylactic clipping is encountered in 1.4% to 3.9% of cases,54-58 whereas 4.9% of patients in whom SAP was used as prophylactic had a bleeding episode within the first 30 days post-intervention. Bleeding prophylaxis was an indication for SAP in most of the early studies analyzed in this review, and some data suggest that the gel also has ulcer-healing-enhancing properties.19,20
To correctly position the SAP in the hemostatic armamentarium, we must consider the unique properties of this new method. SAP can be used before or after virtually any other hemostatic method because it forms a transparent gel that conducts current, ensuring that all options remain open to manage challenging bleeding situations. For example, current guidelines recommend the use of two hemostatic methods for actively bleeding peptic ulcers and topical sprays or cap-mounted clips for refractory bleeding.2 OTSC has shown promising results as first line therapy for the treatment of upper non-variceal GI bleeding, evidenced by Qiu et al.59 who recently reported a 100% technical success rate (80/80 patients) with a clinical success rate of 91.3% (73/80). In cases of arterial bleeding, SAP is less efficient but can be used as a complementary method to achieve hemostasis. For instance, in a study by de Nucci et al.,20 SAP showed promise as salvage therapy, after at least two options failed, and had a success rate of 90.9%. Furthermore, the delivery method using an endoscopic catheter without the risk of clotting makes SAP a good alternative for bleeding in difficult-to-reach anatomical locations. SAP have been used off-label to achieve successful hemostasis in cases that are technically difficult to treat, such as fistula-bleeding after lumen apposing metal stent removal (treatment of an infected pancreatic pseudocyst),60 biliary tract bleeding (acute intrahepatic biliary duct bleeding following electrohydraulic lithotripsy),61 or bleeding following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement.62 Furthermore, owing to its non-targeted application, the gel is an intriguing option for diffuse bleeding scenarios, such as radiation proctopathy or malignancy-related GI bleeding, for which it has showed high efficiency in achieving hemostasis (94.1%).63
In terms of adverse effects, three studies reported perforation,22 elevation of uremic acid and transaminases,29 and hyperamylasemia.32 None of the events were directly related to the use of hemostatic gel. Compared with hemostatic powders, no endoscope blockages or camera obscurations were reported in the reviewed studies. Studies that assessed ease of use reported a high degree of satisfaction with its application among endoscopists. Some authors noted certain difficulties in applying the gel to gravitationally dependent surfaces and a risk of premature rinsing off of the gel owing to peristalsis and mucus formation. Furthermore, no recommendations regarding the optimum quantity of gel can be currently made.
Because SAP was introduced relatively recently in GI endoscopy, there is a natural dearth of well-designed studies. We performed an extensive search of the databases and screened conference proceedings history from past years and clinical trial results, but data from gray literature could have been missed during the process. The main limitations of our study were its qualitative nature and the inability to report statistical results. We were unable to report the results based on the etiology and location of bleeding, as the studies included in this analysis had different designs, making it challenging to integrate them into a cohesive whole. Additionally, these data were not analyzed in the subcategories of the original studies.
Another important aspect is that in most of the studies identified, SAP tended to be used in challenging clinical settings (salvage therapy, severe bleeding, and technically difficult procedures); consequently, the results cannot be applied to common cases. While this might be a good future indication for the widespread use of SAP, further studies on common indications for hemostasis are needed before recommendations can be made currently.
Hemostatic powders, such as TC-325 (Cook Medical), EndoClot (EndoClot Plus), CEGP-003 (CGBio Inc.), UI-EWD (Nex­powder), or Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS; Ankaferd Health Products Ltd.) were not included in this analysis because previous comprehensive results on their efficacy in GI bleeding were already available.
The lack of standardization regarding the use of SAP in different settings (treatment or prevention of bleeding in the GI tract) is an important issue identified by our analysis and should be addressed in further prospective multicenter studies using larger samples, with similar definitions of hemostatic or prophylactic success. The hemostatic efficacy of SAP should be compared to that of standard endoscopic therapy in future well-designed randomized trials.
The most important conclusion of our study is that SAP is efficient for the treatment of oozing intraprocedural bleeding during advanced endoscopic resection and has a low rebleeding rate after prophylactic use. Evidently, SAP is safe and can be used even in technically difficult-to-control bleeding situations. Further randomized studies are required to establish the efficacy and optimal indications for SAP.
Fig. 1.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis flowchart of the article selection process. RCT, randomized controlled trial.
ce-2023-168f1.jpg
ce-2023-168f2.jpg
Table 1.
Description of included studies
Study Type of study No. of patients treated Location Type of bleeding Prophylactic use Included patients
Arndtz et al. (2021)16 Prospective, multicenter, observational-descriptive 226 U-L NA Yes EMR, ESD, RP, others
Branchi et al. (2022)17 Prospective, multicenter, observational-descriptive 111 U-L O-S No EMR, ESD, GDU, others
Subramaniam et al. (2019)18 Prospective, single-center, observational-descriptive 100 U-L O Yes EMR, ESD
Uedo et al. (2022)19 Prospective, multicenter, interventional, randomized 86 U-L NA No ESD
de Nucci et al. (2020)20 Prospective, multicenter, observational-descriptive 77 U-L O-S No EMR, ERCP, GDU, others
Pioche et al. (2016)21 Retrospective multicenter, observational-descriptive 56 U-L NA Yes EMR, ESD
Subramaniam et al. (2021)22 Prospective, single-center, interventional, randomized, single-blind 46 U-L O No ESD
Uraoka et al. (2016)23 Prospective, single-center, observational-descriprive 45 U NA Yes ESD
Soons et al. (2021)24 Prospective, single-center, observational-descriptive 44 U-L NA Yes EMR
Choi et al. (2022)25 Prospective, multicenter, interventional, randomized, single-blind 41 U NA No ERCP
Labianca et al. (2021)26 Prospective, single-center, observational-descriptive 24 U-L NA No EMR, ERCP, GDU
White et al. (2021)27 Prospective, single-center, observational-descriptive 21 L NA No RP
Woolley et al. (2022)28 Retrospective, multicenter, observational-descriptive 17 U NA Yes EMR, AMP
Yoshida et al. (2014)29 Prospective, single-center, observational-descriptive 12 U O No EMR, ESD
Soriani et al. (2018)30 Prospective, single-center, observational-descriptive 7 U-L NA Yes EMR, ESD
Stammers et al. (2021)31 Prospective, single-center, interventional, non-randomized 6 L NA No RP
Ishida et al. (2022)32 Retrospective, single-center, observational-descriptive 6 U O No ERCP

U, upper gastrointestinal tract; L, lower gastrointestinal tract; NA, not applicable; EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; RP, radiation proctopathy; O, oozing; S, spurting; GDU, gastro-duodenal ulcer; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; AMP, ampullectomy.

Table 2.
Summary of primary outcomes of self-assembling peptide for active bleeding
Study Hemostasis (%) Rebleeding (%)
Ishida et al. (2022)32 100 0
Choi et al. (2022)25 100 2.4
Arndtz et al. (2021)16 92 8
Branchi et al. (2022)17 88.3 16.2
Subramaniam et al. (2021)22 92.6 0
Labianca et al. (2021)26 100 0
White et al. (2021)27 38.1 4.8
de Nucci et al. (2020)20 90.9 10.4
Subramaniam et al. (2019)18 75 NA
Yoshida et al. (2014)29 100 0
Overall 87.7 4.7

NA, not applicable.

Table 3.
Summary of primary outcomes of self-assembling peptide for prophylaxis
Study Procedure Follow-up (day) Delayed bleeding (%)
Woolley et al. (2022)28 EMR, AMP 30 5.9
Subramaniam et al. (2021)22 ESD 30 4.3
Soons et al. (2021)24 EMR 30 15.9
Arndtz et al. (2021)16 EMR, ESD, RP, others NA 2.3
Subramaniam et al. (2019)18 EMR, ESD 30 3
Soriani et al. (2018)30 EMR, ESD 30 0
Pioche et al. (2016)21 EMR, ESD 30 6.1
Uraoka et al. (2016)23 ESD NA 1.9
Overall 30 4.9

EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; AMP, ampullectomy; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; RP, radiation proctopathy; NA, not applicable.

Table 4.
Summary of outcomes according to use of associated treatments
Indication Self-assembling peptide Hemostasis (%) Rebleeding (%)
Hemostasis First and only treatment 93.5 0.6
Hemostasis Associated to a complementary technique 81.8 7.8
Prophylaxis First and only treatment NA 7.7
Prophylaxis Associated to a complementary technique NA 2.8

NA, not applicable.

Table 5.
Methodological index for non-randomized studies
Study Descriptive studies
 Additional criteria for comparative studies
A clearly state aim Inclusion of consecutive patients Prospective collection of data Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint Follow-up period appropriate to aim of the study Loss to follow-up less than 5% Prospective calculation of the study size An adequate control group Contemporary group Baseline equivalence of groups Adequate statistical analyses Total
Stammers et al. (2021)31 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 19
Soons et al. (2021)24 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 12
Branchi et al. (2022)17 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 1 12
Pioche et al. (2016)21 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 12
Uraoka et al. (2016)23 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 12
de Nucci et al. (2020)20 2 2 2 2 0 1 1 0 10
White et al. (2021)27 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 10
Subramaniam et al. (2019)18 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 10
Soriani et al. (2018)30 0 2 2 1 0 2 2 0 9
Woolley et al. (2022)28 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 8
Yoshida et al. (2014)29 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 8
Labianca et al. (2021)26 2 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 7
Arndtz et al. (2021)16 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4
Ishida et al. (2022)32 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4
Table 6.
The modified Jadad scale for randomized controlled trial studies
Study Was the study described as randomized? Was the method of randomization appropriate? Was the study described as blinding? Was the method of blinding appropriate? Was there a description of withdrawals and dropouts? Was there a clear description of the inclusion/exclusion criteria? Was the method used to assess adverse effects described? Was the methods of statistical analysis described? Total
Subramaniam et al. (2021)22 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 7.5
Uedo et al. (2022)19 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3
Choi et al. (2022)25 1 0 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 2.5
  • 1. Laursen SB, Stanley AJ, Laine L, et al. Rebleeding in peptic ulcer bleeding: a nationwide cohort study of 19,537 patients. Scand J Gastroenterol 2022;57:1423–1429.ArticlePubMed
  • 2. Gralnek IM, Stanley AJ, Morris AJ, et al. Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline: Update 2021. Endoscopy 2021;53:300–332.ArticlePubMed
  • 3. ASGE Technology Committee, Parsi MA, Schulman AR, et al. Devices for endoscopic hemostasis of nonvariceal GI bleeding (with videos). VideoGIE 2019;4:285–299.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 4. Voiosu A. Commentary. Endoscopy 2022;54:1234–1235.ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Nishiyama N, Kobara H, Kobayashi N, et al. Efficacy of endoscopic ligation with O-ring closure for prevention of bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection under antithrombotic therapy: a prospective observational study. Endoscopy 2022;54:1078–1084.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 6. Gangwani MK, Ahuja P, Aziz A, et al. Role of prophylactic hemoclip placement in prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding for large colon polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Gastroenterol 2021;34:392–398.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 7. Zhang S, Holmes T, Lockshin C, et al. Spontaneous assembly of a self-complementary oligopeptide to form a stable macroscopic membrane. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1993;90:3334–3338.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 8. Ellis-Behnke RG, Liang YX, Tay DK, et al. Nano hemostat solution: immediate hemostasis at the nanoscale. Nanomedicine 2006;2:207–215.ArticlePubMed
  • 9. Masuhara H, Fujii T, Watanabe Y, et al. Novel infectious agent-free hemostatic material (TDM-621) in cardiovascular surgery. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012;18:444–451.ArticlePubMed
  • 10. Friedland Y, Bagot d’Arc MB, Ha J, et al. The use of self-assembling peptides (PuraStat™) in functional endoscopic sinus surgery for haemostasis and reducing adhesion formation: a case series of 94 patients. Surg Technol Int 2022;41:sti41/1594.ArticlePubMed
  • 11. Gangner Y, Bagot d’Arc M, Delin C. The use of self-assembling peptides (PuraStat) for hemostasis in cervical endocrine surgery: a real-life case series of 353 patients. Int J Surg Case Rep 2022;94:107072.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 12. Nahm CB, Popescu I, Botea F, et al. A multi-center post-market clinical study to confirm safety and performance of PuraStat® in the management of bleeding during open liver resection. HPB (Oxford) 2022;24:700–707.ArticlePubMed
  • 13. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. K210098 [Internet]. U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2021 [cited 2022 Nov 15]. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf21/K210098.pdf
  • 14. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, et al. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 2003;73:712–716.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 15. Clark HD, Wells GA, Huët C, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale. Control Clin Trials 1999;20:448–452.ArticlePubMed
  • 16. Arndtz S, Subramaniam S, Hossain E, et al. Outcomes from the UK purastat® registry: multicentre observational study of purastat® use in gastrointestinal bleeding. Gut 2021;70:A45–A46.Article
  • 17. Branchi F, Klingenberg-Noftz R, Friedrich K, et al. PuraStat in gastrointestinal bleeding: results of a prospective multicentre observational pilot study. Surg Endosc 2022;36:2954–2961.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 18. Subramaniam S, Kandiah K, Thayalasekaran S, et al. Haemostasis and prevention of bleeding related to ER: the role of a novel self-assembling peptide. United European Gastroenterol J 2019;7:155–162.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 19. Uedo N, Uraoka T, Saito Y, et al. A new hemostatic peptide solution for reduction of electrocauterization during endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95(6 Supplement):AB465.Article
  • 20. de Nucci G, Reati R, Arena I, et al. Efficacy of a novel self-assembling peptide hemostatic gel as rescue therapy for refractory acute gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopy 2020;52:773–779.ArticlePubMed
  • 21. Pioche M, Camus M, Rivory J, et al. A self-assembling matrix-forming gel can be easily and safely applied to prevent delayed bleeding after endoscopic resections. Endosc Int Open 2016;4:E415–E419.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 22. Subramaniam S, Kandiah K, Chedgy F, et al. A novel self-assembling peptide for hemostasis during endoscopic submucosal dissection: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2021;53:27–35.ArticlePubMed
  • 23. Uraoka T, Ochiai Y, Fujimoto A, et al. A novel fully synthetic and self-assembled peptide solution for endoscopic submucosal dissection-induced ulcer in the stomach. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:1259–1264.ArticlePubMed
  • 24. Soons E, Turan A, van Geenen E, et al. Application of a novel self-assembling peptide to prevent hemorrhage after EMR, a feasibility and safety study. Surg Endosc 2021;35:3564–3571.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 25. Choi JH, Cho IR, Lee SH, et al. Efficacy and safety of novel hemostatic gel in endoscopic sphincterotomy or endoscopic papillectomy: a multicenter, single-blinded, prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:AB341–AB342.Article
  • 26. Labianca O, Sica M, Zulli C, et al. Use of Purastat in management of gastro-intestinal bleeding: our experience. Endoscopy 2021;53:S97–S98.Article
  • 27. White K, Henson CC. Endoscopically delivered Purastat for the treatment of severe haemorrhagic radiation proctopathy: a service evaluation of a new endoscopic treatment for a challenging condition. Frontline Gastroenterol 2021;12:608–613.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 28. Woolley M, Subhaharan D, Bassan M, et al. Efficacy of a novel peptide haemostatic gel in prevention of bleeding post endoscopic resection of large duodenal adenomas. Endoscopy 2022;54(S 01):S282.Article
  • 29. Yoshida M, Goto N, Kawaguchi M, et al. Initial clinical trial of a novel hemostat, TDM-621, in the endoscopic treatments of the gastric tumors. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;29 Suppl 4:77–79.ArticlePubMed
  • 30. Soriani P, Mirante VG, Barbera C, et al. Novel endoscopic tool to prevent delayed bleeding after wide endoscopic resections in high risk patients: an initial single-centre experience. Dig Liver Dis 2018;50:e146.Article
  • 31. Stammers M, Boger P, Patel P, et al. Comparison between 4% formalin instillation and purastat application for radiation proctopathy. Gut 2021;70(Suppl 1):A79.Article
  • 32. Ishida Y, Tsuchiya N, Koga T, et al. A novel self-assembling peptide hemostatic gel as an option for initial hemostasis in endoscopic sphincterotomy-related hemorrhage: a case series. Clin J Gastroenterol 2022;15:1210–1215.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 33. Chung IK, Ham JS, Kim HS, et al. Comparison of the hemostatic efficacy of the endoscopic hemoclip method with hypertonic saline-epinephrine injection and a combination of the two for the management of bleeding peptic ulcers. Gastrointest Endosc 1999;49:13–18.ArticlePubMed
  • 34. Chung IK, Kim EJ, Lee MS, et al. Bleeding Dieulafoy’s lesions and the choice of endoscopic method: comparing the hemostatic efficacy of mechanical and injection methods. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:721–724.ArticlePubMed
  • 35. Hamada S, Teramoto A, Zukeyama R, et al. Efficacy of combination therapy with epinephrine local injection and hemostatic clips on active diverticular bleeding. J Clin Med 2022;11:5195.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 36. Sung JJ, Tsoi KK, Lai LH, et al. Endoscopic clipping versus injection and thermo-coagulation in the treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis. Gut 2007;56:1364–1373.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 37. Kataoka M, Kawai T, Hayama Y, et al. Comparison of hemostasis using bipolar hemostatic forceps with hemostasis by endoscopic hemoclipping for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in a prospective non-randomized trial. Surg Endosc 2013;27:3035–3038.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 38. Yuan Y, Wang C, Hunt RH. Endoscopic clipping for acute nonvariceal upper-GI bleeding: a meta-analysis and critical appraisal of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:339–351.ArticlePubMed
  • 39. Rosenstock SJ, Møller MH, Larsson H, et al. Improving quality of care in peptic ulcer bleeding: nationwide cohort study of 13,498 consecutive patients in the Danish Clinical Register of Emergency Surgery. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:1449–1457.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 40. McWhinney CD, Vemulapalli KC, El Rahyel A, et al. Adverse events and residual lesion rate after cold endoscopic mucosal resection of serrated lesions ≥10 mm. Gastrointest Endosc 2021;93:654–659.ArticlePubMed
  • 41. Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C, et al. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2017;49:270–297.ArticlePubMed
  • 42. Pimentel-Nunes P, Libânio D, Bastiaansen BA, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022. Endoscopy 2022;54:591–622.ArticlePubMed
  • 43. Jung DH, Park JC. Strategies that reduce post-endoscopic submucosal dissection bleeding. Korean J Helicobacter Up Gastrointest Res 2021;21:194–202.ArticlePDF
  • 44. 3-D Matrix Medical Technology. PuraStat: the first haemostat approved to reduce delayed bleeding following ESD in the colon [Internet]. 3-D Matrix Medical Technology; 2021 [cited 2022 Nov 15]. Available from: https://www.healthcare21.eu/product/purastat/?attachment_id=11084&download_file=t9f02uom9wa1h
  • 45. Cryer BL, Wilcox CM, Henk HJ, et al. The economics of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in a US managed-care setting: a retrospective, claims-based analysis. J Med Econ 2010;13:70–77.ArticlePubMed
  • 46. Bartell N, Bittner K, Kaul V, et al. Clinical efficacy of the over-the-scope clip device: a systematic review. World J Gastroenterol 2020;26:3495–3516.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 47. Zhong C, Tan S, Ren Y, et al. Clinical outcomes of over-the-scope-clip system for the treatment of acute upper non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Gastroenterol 2019;19:225.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 48. Chandrasekar VT, Desai M, Aziz M, et al. Efficacy and safety of over-the-scope clips for gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2019;51:941–949.ArticlePubMed
  • 49. Mutneja H, Bhurwal A, Go A, et al. Efficacy of hemospray in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2020;29:69–76.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 50. Facciorusso A, Bertini M, Bertoni M, et al. Effectiveness of hemostatic powders in lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2021;9:E1283–E1290.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 51. Misumi Y, Nonaka K. Prevention and management of complications and education in endoscopic submucosal dissection. J Clin Med 2021;10:2511.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 52. Bishay K, Meng ZW, Frehlich L, et al. Prophylactic clipping to prevent delayed colonic post-polypectomy bleeding: meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies. Surg Endosc 2022;36:1251–1262.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 53. Lau LH, Guo CL, Lee JK, et al. Effectiveness of prophylactic clipping in preventing postpolypectomy bleeding in oral anticoagulant users: a propensity-score analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2022;96:530–542.ArticlePubMed
  • 54. Ayoub F, Westerveld DR, Forde JJ, et al. Effect of prophylactic clip placement following endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal lesions on delayed polypectomy bleeding: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2019;25:2251–2263.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 55. Forbes N, Gupta S, Frehlich L, et al. Clip closure to prevent adverse events after EMR of proximal large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2022;96:721–731.ArticlePubMed
  • 56. Yang TC, Wu YH, Lee PC, et al. Prophylactic clipping after endoscopic mucosal resection of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;36:1778–1787.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 57. Nishizawa T, Suzuki H, Goto O, et al. Effect of prophylactic clipping in colorectal endoscopic resection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. United European Gastroenterol J 2017;5:859–867.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 58. Chen B, Du L, Luo L, et al. Prophylactic clips to reduce delayed polypectomy bleeding after resection of large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2021;93:807–815.ArticlePubMed
  • 59. Qiu J, Xu J, Zhang Y, et al. Over-the-scope clip applications as first-line therapy in the treatment of upper non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding, perforations, and fistulas. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022;9:753956.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 60. Nakahara K, Sekine A, Tateishi K. Self-assembling peptide gel application to achieve endoscopic hemostasis for fistula bleeding after lumen apposing metal stent removal. Dig Endosc 2023;35:e48–e49.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 61. Soriani P, Biancheri P, Deiana S, et al. Off-label PuraStat use for the treatment of acute intrahepatic biliary duct bleeding. Endosc Int Open 2021;9:E1926–E1927.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 62. Kubo K. Delayed bleeding following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy successfully treated with PuraStat®. Intern Med 2023;62:487–488.ArticlePubMed
  • 63. Karna R, Deliwala S, Ramgopal B, et al. Efficacy of topical hemostatic agents in malignancy-related GI bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2023;97:202–208.ArticlePubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • PubReader PubReader
      • ePub LinkePub Link
      • Cite
        CITE
        export Copy Download
        Close
        Download Citation
        Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
        Format:
        • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
        • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
        Include:
        • Citation for the content below
        Systematic review of self-assembling peptides as topical agents for treatment and prevention of gastrointestinal bleeding
        Clin Endosc. 2024;57(4):454-465.   Published online May 24, 2024
        DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2023.168
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Figure
      • 0
      • 1
      Related articles
      Systematic review of self-assembling peptides as topical agents for treatment and prevention of gastrointestinal bleeding
      Image Image
      Fig. 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis flowchart of the article selection process. RCT, randomized controlled trial.
      Graphical abstract

      Fig. 1.

      Graphical abstract

      Systematic review of self-assembling peptides as topical agents for treatment and prevention of gastrointestinal bleeding
      Study Type of study No. of patients treated Location Type of bleeding Prophylactic use Included patients
      Arndtz et al. (2021)16 Prospective, multicenter, observational-descriptive 226 U-L NA Yes EMR, ESD, RP, others
      Branchi et al. (2022)17 Prospective, multicenter, observational-descriptive 111 U-L O-S No EMR, ESD, GDU, others
      Subramaniam et al. (2019)18 Prospective, single-center, observational-descriptive 100 U-L O Yes EMR, ESD
      Uedo et al. (2022)19 Prospective, multicenter, interventional, randomized 86 U-L NA No ESD
      de Nucci et al. (2020)20 Prospective, multicenter, observational-descriptive 77 U-L O-S No EMR, ERCP, GDU, others
      Pioche et al. (2016)21 Retrospective multicenter, observational-descriptive 56 U-L NA Yes EMR, ESD
      Subramaniam et al. (2021)22 Prospective, single-center, interventional, randomized, single-blind 46 U-L O No ESD
      Uraoka et al. (2016)23 Prospective, single-center, observational-descriprive 45 U NA Yes ESD
      Soons et al. (2021)24 Prospective, single-center, observational-descriptive 44 U-L NA Yes EMR
      Choi et al. (2022)25 Prospective, multicenter, interventional, randomized, single-blind 41 U NA No ERCP
      Labianca et al. (2021)26 Prospective, single-center, observational-descriptive 24 U-L NA No EMR, ERCP, GDU
      White et al. (2021)27 Prospective, single-center, observational-descriptive 21 L NA No RP
      Woolley et al. (2022)28 Retrospective, multicenter, observational-descriptive 17 U NA Yes EMR, AMP
      Yoshida et al. (2014)29 Prospective, single-center, observational-descriptive 12 U O No EMR, ESD
      Soriani et al. (2018)30 Prospective, single-center, observational-descriptive 7 U-L NA Yes EMR, ESD
      Stammers et al. (2021)31 Prospective, single-center, interventional, non-randomized 6 L NA No RP
      Ishida et al. (2022)32 Retrospective, single-center, observational-descriptive 6 U O No ERCP
      Study Hemostasis (%) Rebleeding (%)
      Ishida et al. (2022)32 100 0
      Choi et al. (2022)25 100 2.4
      Arndtz et al. (2021)16 92 8
      Branchi et al. (2022)17 88.3 16.2
      Subramaniam et al. (2021)22 92.6 0
      Labianca et al. (2021)26 100 0
      White et al. (2021)27 38.1 4.8
      de Nucci et al. (2020)20 90.9 10.4
      Subramaniam et al. (2019)18 75 NA
      Yoshida et al. (2014)29 100 0
      Overall 87.7 4.7
      Study Procedure Follow-up (day) Delayed bleeding (%)
      Woolley et al. (2022)28 EMR, AMP 30 5.9
      Subramaniam et al. (2021)22 ESD 30 4.3
      Soons et al. (2021)24 EMR 30 15.9
      Arndtz et al. (2021)16 EMR, ESD, RP, others NA 2.3
      Subramaniam et al. (2019)18 EMR, ESD 30 3
      Soriani et al. (2018)30 EMR, ESD 30 0
      Pioche et al. (2016)21 EMR, ESD 30 6.1
      Uraoka et al. (2016)23 ESD NA 1.9
      Overall 30 4.9
      Indication Self-assembling peptide Hemostasis (%) Rebleeding (%)
      Hemostasis First and only treatment 93.5 0.6
      Hemostasis Associated to a complementary technique 81.8 7.8
      Prophylaxis First and only treatment NA 7.7
      Prophylaxis Associated to a complementary technique NA 2.8
      Study Descriptive studies
      		 Additional criteria for comparative studies
      A clearly state aim Inclusion of consecutive patients Prospective collection of data Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint Follow-up period appropriate to aim of the study Loss to follow-up less than 5% Prospective calculation of the study size An adequate control group Contemporary group Baseline equivalence of groups Adequate statistical analyses Total
      Stammers et al. (2021)31 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 19
      Soons et al. (2021)24 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 12
      Branchi et al. (2022)17 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 1 12
      Pioche et al. (2016)21 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 12
      Uraoka et al. (2016)23 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 12
      de Nucci et al. (2020)20 2 2 2 2 0 1 1 0 10
      White et al. (2021)27 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 10
      Subramaniam et al. (2019)18 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 10
      Soriani et al. (2018)30 0 2 2 1 0 2 2 0 9
      Woolley et al. (2022)28 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 8
      Yoshida et al. (2014)29 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 8
      Labianca et al. (2021)26 2 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 7
      Arndtz et al. (2021)16 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4
      Ishida et al. (2022)32 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4
      Study Was the study described as randomized? Was the method of randomization appropriate? Was the study described as blinding? Was the method of blinding appropriate? Was there a description of withdrawals and dropouts? Was there a clear description of the inclusion/exclusion criteria? Was the method used to assess adverse effects described? Was the methods of statistical analysis described? Total
      Subramaniam et al. (2021)22 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 7.5
      Uedo et al. (2022)19 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3
      Choi et al. (2022)25 1 0 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 2.5
      Table 1. Description of included studies

      U, upper gastrointestinal tract; L, lower gastrointestinal tract; NA, not applicable; EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; RP, radiation proctopathy; O, oozing; S, spurting; GDU, gastro-duodenal ulcer; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; AMP, ampullectomy.

      Table 2. Summary of primary outcomes of self-assembling peptide for active bleeding

      NA, not applicable.

      Table 3. Summary of primary outcomes of self-assembling peptide for prophylaxis

      EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; AMP, ampullectomy; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; RP, radiation proctopathy; NA, not applicable.

      Table 4. Summary of outcomes according to use of associated treatments

      NA, not applicable.

      Table 5. Methodological index for non-randomized studies

      Table 6. The modified Jadad scale for randomized controlled trial studies

      Table 1.

      Table 2.

      Table 3.

      Table 4.

      Table 5.

      Table 6.

      Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy Twitter Facebook
      © Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
      Close layer
      TOP