Journal of clinical gastroenterology
October 1, 2026 · via Europe PMC
International Consensus Statements on the Use of Topical Endoscopic Hemostatic Powders in the Treatment of Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Hussein M, Papaefthymiou A, Wani S, +17 more, Haidry R.
AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only
An international expert panel reached consensus on 11 statements guiding the use of topical endoscopic hemostatic powders for acute GI bleeding, recommending their use for malignancy-related bleeding, as salvage therapy for nonvariceal bleeding, and as a bridge to definitive non-endoscopic treatment.
What was studied
A consensus development process using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, involving 15 international experts from 8 countries who voted in two rounds to establish expert-led consensus statements on the appropriate use of topical endoscopic hemostatic powders (TEHPs) in managing acute gastrointestinal bleeding (AGIB).
Key findings
- Following two rounds of voting, 11 final statements reached consensus using multiple statistical definitions of appropriateness.
- Key recommendations include that TEHPs are effective for achieving hemostasis in malignancy-related gastrointestinal bleeding.
- The panel also recommended TEHPs can be used as 'salvage' therapy for nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding and as a bridge to definitive nonendoscopic therapy.
Clinical relevance
The findings provide endoscopists with expert-based practical guidance on when topical hemostatic powders are an appropriate treatment choice for acute GI bleeding, particularly for malignancy-related bleeding, salvage situations, or as a temporizing measure before definitive treatment, though the panel itself calls for future comparative trials between different hemostatic powders.
Who should care
Limitations
This is an expert consensus statement based on collective judgment and existing evidence rather than new randomized trial data; the panel itself notes the need for future trials comparing different hemostatic powders.
An international expert panel reached consensus recommending topical hemostatic powders for malignancy-related GI bleeding, as salvage therapy for nonvariceal bleeding, and as a bridge to definitive treatment, while calling for future comparative trials.
This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.
Abstract
Background
Acute GI bleeding (AGIB) can be associated with significant mortality. Topical endoscopic hemostatic powders (TEHPs) have become established as one of the endoscopic treatment modalities for AGIBs. There is no dedicated consensus on the role of TEHPs in the GIB algorithm.
Objective
We aimed to develop expert-led consensus statements to provide guidance on the use of TEHPs in AGIBs.
Design
A team of 15 experts in the field of acute AGIB from 8 countries was recruited to construct consensus statements on the use of TEHPs. A first meeting was held to define statements. Using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, they voted on statements by combining expert collective judgment and best available evidence in a 2-round voting process. Statements were rated on a 9-point interval scale (1 to 9). Four statistical methods were used to delineate statements that satisfied all criteria of appropriateness. For a statement to be considered appropriate, it had to meet all statistical definitions of appropriateness showing consensus agreement.
Results
Following round 2, 11 final statements were scored as appropriate, reaching overall consensus. Key recommendations include that TEHPs are effective in achieving hemostasis in malignancy-related GIBs, can be used as "salvage" therapy for nonvariceal GIBs and can be used as a bridge to definitive nonendoscopic therapy.
Conclusion
We present a dedicated international consensus statement aimed at providing guidance to clinicians on best practice use of TEHPs in patients with AGIBs. There was consensus among the panel on the need for future trials to compare the use of different hemostatic powders in patients presenting with GIB.
DOI
10.1097/mcg.0000000000002410
PMID
42370579
Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.
Want more like this?
Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.
Back to the research feed