Effectiveness of Hemopatch® versus Surgicel® Original to control mild and moderate liver bleeding.
Hemostasis
Hemostat
Hepatic bleeding
Liver
Patient safety
Surgery
Trauma
VIBe SCALE
Wound sealing
Journal
BMC surgery
ISSN: 1471-2482
Titre abrégé: BMC Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968567
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Aug 2022
14 Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
28
01
2022
accepted:
18
07
2022
entrez:
14
8
2022
pubmed:
15
8
2022
medline:
17
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Adjunct hemostats can be of use in certain surgical settings. We compared the effectiveness of two hemostats, Hemopatch® and Surgicel® Original in controlling bleeding from liver lesions in an experimental model. Control of grades 1 (mild) and 2 (moderate) bleeding (according to the Validated Intraoperative Bleeding [VIBe] SCALE) was assessed for 10 min after Hemopatch® (n = 198) or Surgicel® Original (n = 199) application on 397 liver surface lesions. The primary endpoint was hemostatic success (reaching VIBe SCALE grade 0 at 10 min). The secondary endpoint was time to hemostasis (time to reach and maintain grade 0). A generalized linear mixed model and an accelerated failure time model were used to assess the primary and secondary endpoints, respectively. The overall hemostatic success rate of Hemopatch® was statistically significantly superior to that of Surgicel® Original (83.8% versus 73.4%; p = 0.0036; odds ratio [OR] 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33-4.27) and time to hemostasis was reduced by 15.9% (p = 0.0032; 95% CI 0.749-0.944). Grade 2 bleeds treated with Hemopatch® had statistically significantly higher hemostatic success (71.7% versus 48.5%; p = 0.0007; OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.58-5.58) and shorter time to hemostasis (49.6% reduction, p = 3.6 × 10 Hemopatch® provided better control of VIBe SCALE bleeding compared to Surgicel® Original for Grade 2 bleeds in this porcine model, highlighting the importance of choosing a suitable hemostat to optimize control of bleeding during surgery.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Adjunct hemostats can be of use in certain surgical settings. We compared the effectiveness of two hemostats, Hemopatch® and Surgicel® Original in controlling bleeding from liver lesions in an experimental model.
METHODS
METHODS
Control of grades 1 (mild) and 2 (moderate) bleeding (according to the Validated Intraoperative Bleeding [VIBe] SCALE) was assessed for 10 min after Hemopatch® (n = 198) or Surgicel® Original (n = 199) application on 397 liver surface lesions. The primary endpoint was hemostatic success (reaching VIBe SCALE grade 0 at 10 min). The secondary endpoint was time to hemostasis (time to reach and maintain grade 0). A generalized linear mixed model and an accelerated failure time model were used to assess the primary and secondary endpoints, respectively.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The overall hemostatic success rate of Hemopatch® was statistically significantly superior to that of Surgicel® Original (83.8% versus 73.4%; p = 0.0036; odds ratio [OR] 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33-4.27) and time to hemostasis was reduced by 15.9% (p = 0.0032; 95% CI 0.749-0.944). Grade 2 bleeds treated with Hemopatch® had statistically significantly higher hemostatic success (71.7% versus 48.5%; p = 0.0007; OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.58-5.58) and shorter time to hemostasis (49.6% reduction, p = 3.6 × 10
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Hemopatch® provided better control of VIBe SCALE bleeding compared to Surgicel® Original for Grade 2 bleeds in this porcine model, highlighting the importance of choosing a suitable hemostat to optimize control of bleeding during surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35965336
doi: 10.1186/s12893-022-01747-0
pii: 10.1186/s12893-022-01747-0
pmc: PMC9375927
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cellulose, Oxidized
0
Hemostatics
0
Surgicel
82347-53-3
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
316Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Med Econ. 2021 Jan-Dec;24(1):514-523
pubmed: 33858281
AORN J. 2008 Sep;88(3):S2-11
pubmed: 18790097
BMC Surg. 2018 Aug 29;18(1):68
pubmed: 30157821
Transplant Proc. 2006 Apr;38(3):812-4
pubmed: 16647479
Am J Surg. 1979 Dec;138(6):894-900
pubmed: 507308
J Invest Surg. 2016 Dec;29(6):343-351
pubmed: 27002742
Int J Surg Case Rep. 2018;47:7-10
pubmed: 29698885
J Trauma. 2004 Oct;57(4):756-9
pubmed: 15514529
Surgery. 2017 Mar;161(3):771-781
pubmed: 27839931
Med Devices (Auckl). 2015 Mar 31;8:167-74
pubmed: 25878513
BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 May 31;11:135
pubmed: 21627788
Surg Technol Int. 2014 Nov;25:29-35
pubmed: 25433173
J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Aug;35(8):2505-2507
pubmed: 32514896
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 1;38(10):1081
pubmed: 32013670
Perioper Med (Lond). 2020 Nov 23;9(1):39
pubmed: 33292504
Heart. 2021 Jan;107(1):47-53
pubmed: 33122302
BMC Res Notes. 2018 Apr 11;11(1):239
pubmed: 29642951
Sci Rep. 2019 Aug 19;9(1):12001
pubmed: 31427638
J Invest Surg. 2013 Jun;26(3):141-8
pubmed: 23514063
J Am Coll Surg. 2013 Sep;217(3):385-93
pubmed: 23969113
Br J Surg. 2018 Nov;105(12):1573-1582
pubmed: 30199093
Med Devices (Auckl). 2017 Nov 30;10:273-279
pubmed: 29238233
J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2009 Jul;28(1):1-5
pubmed: 18629446
Surg Technol Int. 2016 Jul 29;XXIX:
pubmed: 27466878
Surg Endosc. 2018 Sep;32(9):3881-3889
pubmed: 29492708
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018 May;15(5):367-376
pubmed: 29658322
Crit Care. 2019 Mar 27;23(1):98
pubmed: 30917843