Randomized Trial of UI-EWD vs. Conventional Endoscopic Therapy for Bleeding Ulcers

Not Applicable

Recruiting

• Conditions: Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding

• Registration Number: NCT06188585
• Lead Sponsor: Medtronic - MITG

Brief Summary

A prospective, multi-center, noninferiority randomized controlled trial designed to compare the efficacy of UI-EWD (Nexpowder™) hemostatic powder versus conventional endoscopic hemostatic therapy in patients presenting with acute overt gastrointestinal bleeding which is found at endoscopy to be due to one of the following sources: a gastric or duodenal ulcer with active bleeding (spurting or oozing) or a non-bleeding visible vessel; an esophageal, gastric or duodenal tumor with active bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel; a gastric or duodenal Dieulafoy lesion with active bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel; or an actively bleeding Mallory-Weiss tear.

Detailed Description

Endoscopic hemostatic therapy is recommended as the first line therapy for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) due to ulcers with active bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel identified at endoscopy. A variety of endoscopic modalities are used in the treatment of UGIB, including thermal therapies (e.g., bipolar electrocoagulation), injection therapy (e.g., epinephrine), clips, and hemostatic powder spray. Topical therapies, such as hemostatic powder spray, have been the most recent addition to the armamentarium of endoscopic therapies for UGIB.

UI-EWD hemostatic powder (Nexpowder™), which is manufactured by NextBiomedical and distributed by Medtronic, is approved for treatment of nonvariceal GI bleeding in the U.S., Canada, European Union and other countries.

A retrospective study of UI-EWD hemostatic powder in 56 patients with active bleeding found immediate hemostasis in 54 (96.4%), with rebleeding within 7 days in only 2 patients (3.7%)\[1\]. A large multi-center randomized trial in 340 patients with nonvariceal UGIB and either active bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel compared conventional endoscopic hemostatic therapy alone to conventional therapy plus UI-EWD. Rebleeding was significantly lower in the UI-EWD group at 3 days (3 vs. 11%) and at 30 days (19% vs. 7%) \[2\].

The primary aim of this trial is to demonstrate that UI-EWD when used as initial hemostatic therapy is non-inferior to older conventional endoscopic hemostatic therapy for the treatment of patients with high-risk nonvariceal upper GI bleeding.

Study Timeline

• Study First Submitted: 2023-12-18
• Study First Submitted QC: 2023-12-18
• Study First Posted: 2024-01-03
• Study Start: 2024-06-21
• Status Verified: 2024-07
• Last Update Submitted: 2025-07-03
• Last Update Posted: 2025-07-09
• Primary Completion: 2026-07
• Study Completion: 2026-08-01

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: RECRUITING
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 278

Inclusion Criteria

1. Adults age 22 years or older
2. Presentation with acute overt gastrointestinal bleeding (hematemesis, melena, and/or hematochezia)
3. Subject voluntarily agrees to participate in the clinical investigation, provides written informed consent, and will be able to comply with the investigational protocol in the opinion of the site investigator
4. Cause of bleeding as determined at upper endoscopy is one of the following sources: a gastric or duodenal ulcer with active bleeding (spurting or oozing) or a non-bleeding visible vessel; an esophageal, gastric or duodenal tumor with active bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel; a gastric or duodenal Dieulafoy lesion with active bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel; or an actively bleeding Mallory-Weiss tear. The definition of "active oozing" will require bleeding to persist for ≥ 3 minutes of endoscopic observation.

Exclusion Criteria

1. Incarceration
2. Subjects that are not able to provide written informed consent
3. Pregnancy or nursing mothers
4. Endoscopic hemostatic treatment in the past 30 days
5. Use of triple antithrombotic therapy at the time of presentation
6. Subjects who underwent gastric or duodenal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures within the past 2 months
7. Post-polypectomy bleeding
8. Subjects with erosive esophagitis, erosive gastritis, esophageal ulcer, or vascular ectasia including gastric antral vascular ectasia
9. Platelet count < 50 x 10^9/L
10. INR > 3.5 (or prothrombin time >35 seconds in patient not on warfarin and only prothrombin time is provided by local lab), at time of procedure or closest to procedure time
11. Subjects who have documented galactose intolerance, Lapp lactase deficiency or glucose-galactose malabsorption
12. Subjects with documented hypersensitivity to Brilliant Blue FCF
13. Subjects with suspected bowel obstruction or gastrointestinal fistulas, and those suspected or are at high risk of having gastrointestinal perforation.
14. Endoscopy not performed within 36 hours of presentation to hospital/emergency department

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
No further bleeding during the 7-day period after hemostatic treatment	7 days	Further bleeding includes patients with persistent bleeding despite study-assigned endoscopic therapy or patients with recurrent bleeding

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Composite 30-day outcome of further bleeding	30 days	Further bleeding leading to red blood cell transfusion or urgent intervention (need for alternative therapy at index endoscopy, repeat endoscopy, interventional radiology, or surgery)
Initial hemostasis for patients with active bleeding at randomization	During index endoscopy procedure	Initial hemostasis with study-assigned endoscopic therapy for patients with active bleeding
Number of participants with recurrent bleeding over the 7-day period after randomization	7 days	Recurrent bleeding among all patients with hemostasis within 7 days after study-assigned endoscopic therapy
Mortality	30 days	30-day mortality

Trial Locations

Locations (15)

University of Alabama; 🇺🇸 Birmingham, Alabama, United States

Yale; 🇺🇸 New Haven, Connecticut, United States

RUSH University; 🇺🇸 Chicago, Illinois, United States

Brigham and Women's Hospital; 🇺🇸 Boston, Massachusetts, United States

Rutgers University; 🇺🇸 Piscataway, New Jersey, United States

Northwell Health; 🇺🇸 Manhasset, New York, United States

NYU Langone; 🇺🇸 New York, New York, United States

McGill University; 🇨🇦 Montréal, Quebec, Canada

St. Michael's Hospital; 🇨🇦 Toronto, Canada

Vancouver General Hospital; 🇨🇦 Vancouver, Canada

Scroll for more (5 remaining)