4.5 Article

Efficacy of hemostatic matrix and microporous polysaccharide hemospheres

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
Volume 193, Issue 2, Pages 825-830

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2014.08.026

Keywords

Microporous polysaccharide hemospheres; ARISTA AH; Floseal; Hemostats; Hemostasis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Microporous Polysaccharide Hemospheres (MPH) are a new plant-derived polysaccharide powder hemostat. Previous studies investigated MPH as a replacement to nonflowable hemostatic agents of different application techniques (e.g., oxidized cellulose, collagen); therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine if MPH is a surrogate for flowable hemostatic agents of similar handling and application techniques, specifically a flowable thrombin-gelatin hemostatic matrix. Methods: Hemostatic efficacy was compared using a heparinized porcine abrasion model mimicking a capsular tear of a parenchymal organ. MPH (ARISTA, 1 g) and hemostatic matrix (Floseal, 1 mL) were applied, according to a randomized scheme, to paired hepatic abrasions (40 lesions per group). Hemostatic success, control of bleeding, and blood loss were assessed 2, 5, and 10 min after treatment. Hemostatic success and control of bleeding were analyzed using odds ratios and blood loss using mean differences. Results: Hemostatic matrix provided superior hemostatic success relative to MPH at 5 (odds ratio: 0.035, 95% confidence interval: 0.004-0.278) and 10 min (0.032, 0.007-0.150), provided superior control of bleeding at 5 (0.006, <0.001-0.037) and 10 min (0.009, 0.001-0.051), and had significantly less blood loss at 5 (mean difference: 0.3118 mL/min, 95% confidence interval: 0.0939-0.5296) and 10 min (0.5025, 0.2489-0.7561). Conclusions: These findings corroborate other MPH investigations regarding its low-level efficacy and suggest that MPH is not an appropriate surrogate for hemostatic matrix despite similar application techniques. The lack of a procoagulant within MPH may likely be the reason for its lower efficacy and need for multiple applications. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available