Prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial evaluating the performance of a novel combination powder vs hemostatic matrix in cardiothoracic operations

10Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Aim: This trial compared the hemostatic performance of a novel combination powder (CP) to a control hemostatic matrix (HM) in cardiothoracic operations. Methods: Patients meeting eligibility criteria were enrolled after providing informed consent. Subjects were randomized intraoperatively to receive CP (HEMOBLAST Bellows; Biom'up, France) or HM (FLOSEAL Hemostatic Matrix; Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Hayward, CA). Bleeding was assessed using a clinically validated, quantitative bleeding severity scale. The primary endpoint was total time to hemostasis (TTTH), from the start of device preparation, as an indicator of when a surgeon asks for a surgical hemostat until hemostasis was achieved. TTTH at 3 minutes was utilized for the primary analysis, while TTTH at 5 minutes was considered as a secondary endpoint. Results: A total of 105 subjects were enrolled across four institutions. The primary efficacy endpoint for the superiority of CP relative to HM for success at achieving hemostasis within 3 minutes was met, with 64.2% of the CP group achieving hemostasis compared with 9.6% of the HM group, a difference of 54.54% (37.4%-71.6%; P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dang, N. C., Ardehali, A., Bruckner, B. A., Parrino, P. E., Gillen, D. L., Hoffman, R. W., … Spotnitz, W. D. (2020). Prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial evaluating the performance of a novel combination powder vs hemostatic matrix in cardiothoracic operations. Journal of Cardiac Surgery, 35(2), 313–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.14376

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free