No abstract

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has evolved into a robust and efficient means for treating recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Our narrative review looks at the donor selection, preparation, delivery techniques and cost-effectiveness of FMT. We searched electronic databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Databases, for studies that compared the biological effects of donor selection, fresh or frozen fecal preparation, and various delivery techniques. We also evaluated the cost-effectiveness and manually searched references to identify additional relevant studies. Overall, there is a paucity of studies that directly compare outcomes associated with related and non-related stool donors. However, inferences from prior studies indicate that the success of FMT does not depend on the donor-patient relationship. Over time, the use of unrelated donors has increased because of the formation of stool banks and the need to save processing time and capital. However, longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the optimal freezing time before microbial function declines. Several FMT techniques have been developed, such as colonoscopy, enema, nasogastric or nasojejunal tubes, and capsules. The comparable and high efficacy of FMT capsules, combined with their convenience, safety and aesthetically tolerable mode of delivery, makes it an attractive option for many patients. Cost-effective models comparing these various approaches support the use of FMT via colonoscopy as being the best strategy for the treatment of recurrent CDI.

Gastrointestinal bleeding is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The management of gastrointestinal bleeding is often challenging, depending on its location and severity. To date, widely accepted hemostatic treatment options include injection of epinephrine and tissue adhesives such as cyanoacrylate, ablative therapy with contact modalities such as thermal coagulation with heater probe and bipolar hemostatic forceps, noncontact modalities such as photodynamic therapy and argon plasma coagulation, and mechanical hemostasis with band ligation, endoscopic hemoclips, and over-the-scope clips. These approaches, albeit effective in achieving hemostasis, are associated with a 5-10% rebleeding risk. New simple, effective, universal, and safe methods are needed to address some of the challenges posed by the current endoscopic hemostatic techniques. The use of a novel hemostatic powder spray appears to be effective and safe in controlling upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Although initial reports of hemostatic powder spray as an innovative approach to manage gastrointestinal bleeding are promising, further studies are needed to support and confirm its efficacy and safety. The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility, clinical efficacy, and safety of hemostatic powder spray (Hemospray, Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA) as a new method for managing gastrointestinal bleeding. In this review article, we performed an extensive literature search summarizing case reports and case series of Hemospray for the management of gastrointestinal bleeding. Indications, features, technique, deployment, success rate, complications, and limitations are discussed. The combined technical and clinical success rate of Hemospray was 88.5% (207/234) among the human subjects and 81.8% (9/11) among the porcine models studied. Rebleeding occurred within 72 hours post-treatment in 38 patients (38/234; 16.2%) and in three porcine models (3/11; 27.3%). No procedure-related adverse events were associated with the use of Hemospray. Hemospray appears to be a safe and effective approach in the management of gastrointestinal bleeding.