Search

GOALS/BACKGROUND Hemospray is a new hemostatic powder recently approved for endoscopic hemostasis in gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Data are limited in terms of its clinical outcomes, and its role in the treatment algorithm of GI bleeds. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the clinical performance of Hemospray in the management of GI bleeding. STUDY We searched multiple databases from inception through March 2019 to identify studies that reported on the clinical outcomes of Hemospray in GI bleeding. The primary outcome was pooled rates of clinical success after the application of Hemospray in GI bleeding. The secondary outcomes were pooled rebleeding rates and adverse events after use of Hemospray. RESULTS A total of 19 studies, 814 patients, of which 212 patients were treated with Hemospray as monotherapy, and 602 patients were treated with Hemospray with conventional hemostatic techniques. Overall pooled clinical success after the application of Hemospray was 92% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 87%-96%; I2=70.4%]. Overall pooled early rebleeding rates after application of Hemospray was 20% (95% CI, 16%-26%; I2=54%). Overall pooled delayed rebleeding rates after the application of Hemospray was 23% (95% CI, 16%-31%; I2=34.9%). There was no statistical difference in clinical success (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.08; P=0.34) and early rebleeding (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75-1.07; P=0.214) in studies that compared the use of Hemospray as monotherapy versus combination therapy with conventional therapy. CONCLUSIONS Hemospray is highly effective in achieving immediate hemostasis in gastrointestinal bleeding. However, due to significantly high rebleeding rates, Hemospray is not suited for definitive long-term therapy.

Background Controversy exists as to whether disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes in African Americans (AAs) are best resolved by screening at age 45 or by proper use of existing guidelines. In 2004, an aggressive colonoscopy-based CRC screening program was implemented throughout New York City. Our goal was to determine the effect of that program on CRC outcomes in our mostly AA population. Methods CRC cases entered into Harlem Hospital’s tumor registry from January 1992 to December 2011 were divided into two cohorts: 1992-2003, the pre-intensive screening era (PSE), and 2004-2011, the intensive screening era (ISE). Each cohort was reviewed for demographics, indication for colonoscopy, tumor location, tumor stage, and mortality. Multivariate analysis was applied to the pooled cohorts to determine factors associated with survival. Results Inclusion criteria were met by 379 patients: 207 PSE and 172 ISE. Racial distribution, gender, age at presentation, and tumor location were not different during the two eras. Over 75% of patients were AA. During the ISE, 84% were insured compared to 34% in the PSE (P