Skip to content

Hemospray Versus the Combined Conventional Technique for Endoscopic Hemostasis of Bleeding Peptic Ulcers : A Pilot Study

Pilot Study of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Hemospray Versus the Combined Conventional Technique for Endoscopic Hemostasis of Bleeding Peptic Ulcers

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02088385
Enrollment
20
Registered
2014-03-14
Start date
2013-11-30
Completion date
2015-03-31
Last updated
2019-08-29

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Bleeding Peptic Ulcers

Brief summary

Hemospray (TC-325, Cook Medical Inc, Winston-Salem, NC, USA), a new adsorptive nanopowder hemostatic agent for endoscopic treatment of high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers, provides significant ease of administration compared to the combined conventional technique of saline-adrenaline injection with mechanical clip or heater probe applications. The Hemospray powder is easily applied on ulcers at difficult endoscopic positions and ulcers with fibrotic bases, where the combined conventional technique has limited efficacy. Building up on preliminary work from small single-arm studies, the investigators aim to establish the efficacy and safety of Hemospray in treating bleeding peptic ulcers in comparison with the combined conventional technique. The investigators propose a pilot study to establish our centre's feasibility of performing a prospective, randomized, parallel group trial, which compares the efficacy of Hemospray with the combined conventional technique, in the endoscopic treatment of high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers. Patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers will be treated with Hemospray to determine its initial hemostasis rate (defined as endoscopically verified cessation of bleeding for at least 5 minutes after endoscopic treatment), rebleeding rate (recurrent hemorrhage during a 4-week period following the initial hemostasis) and its safety profile.

Interventions

DEVICEHemospray
DEVICECombined Conventional Technique

Sponsors

Changi General Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
21 Years to 99 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Peptic ulcer with high-risk stigmata of recent hemorrhage (Forrest class IA, IB, IIA and IIB)

Exclusion criteria

* Patients younger than 21 years of age * Refusal to participate in study * Contraindicated for endoscopy * Pregnant or lactating patients * Bleeding secondary to non-peptic ulcer source * Patients requiring mechanical ventilation * Patients with acute coronary syndrome

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Re-bleeding Within 4 Weeks4 weeks* drop in hemoglobin of at least 2 g/dl, associated with overt signs of GI bleed (melena, and/or hematemesis) * fresh blood hematemesis * melena with a hemodynamic instability (pulse rate \> 100/min, systolic blood pressure \< 90 mm Hg)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Initial Hemostasis RateWithin first endoscopy sessionEndoscopically verified cessation of bleeding for at least 5 minutes after treatment.

Countries

Singapore

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Hemospray
Hemospray (TC-325, Cook Medical Inc, Winston-Salem, NC, USA), an adsorptive nanopowder hemostatic agent Hemospray
10
Combined Conventional Technique
Standard dual therapy with saline adrenaline injection and hemoclip / heater probe application Combined Conventional Technique
10
Total20

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicCombined Conventional TechniqueHemosprayTotal
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
7 Participants8 Participants15 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
3 Participants2 Participants5 Participants
Age, Continuous72.1 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.4
67.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 18.4
70 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.9
Region of Enrollment
Singapore
10 participants10 participants20 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
3 Participants1 Participants4 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
7 Participants9 Participants16 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
1 / 100 / 10
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 100 / 10
serious
Total, serious adverse events
2 / 100 / 10

Outcome results

Primary

Re-bleeding Within 4 Weeks

* drop in hemoglobin of at least 2 g/dl, associated with overt signs of GI bleed (melena, and/or hematemesis) * fresh blood hematemesis * melena with a hemodynamic instability (pulse rate \> 100/min, systolic blood pressure \< 90 mm Hg)

Time frame: 4 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
HemosprayRe-bleeding Within 4 Weeks3 Participants
Combined Conventional TechniqueRe-bleeding Within 4 Weeks1 Participants
Secondary

Initial Hemostasis Rate

Endoscopically verified cessation of bleeding for at least 5 minutes after treatment.

Time frame: Within first endoscopy session

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
HemosprayInitial Hemostasis Rate9 Participants
Combined Conventional TechniqueInitial Hemostasis Rate10 Participants

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026