RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Hemostatic agents are routinely used in vascular surgery to complement proper suture techniques and decrease the risk of perioperative bleeding. A relative lack of comparative research studies have left surgeons with the option of choosing hemostatic agents based on their personal experience. The present review has highlighted the efficacy and safety of hemostatic agents and categorized them according to their primary mechanism of action and cost. METHODS: A systematic search strategy encompassing hemostatic agent products was deployed in the PubMed database. Single-center and multicenter, randomized, controlled trials with >10 patients were included in the present study. RESULTS: We reviewed 12 studies on the efficacy and safety of hemostatic agents compared with manual compression or other hemostatic agents. Using the time to hemostasis as the primary end point, all studies had found hemostatic agents to be significantly more efficient than manual compression. Likewise, adhesives (high pressure sealants) and dual agents (containing biologically active and absorbable components) were found to be more efficient, but costlier, than agents with either biologically active or absorbable components only. Agents with porcine or bovine constituents were found to trigger anaphylactic reactions in rare cases. Additionally, the absence of fibrin stabilizing factor XIII in a brand of fibrin sealant was speculated to reduce the affinity of the fibrin sealant for the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene graft. The cost of agents varied greatly depending on their active ingredient. CONCLUSIONS: Hemostatic agents appear to be highly effective at decreasing the risk of bleeding during surgical procedures. Although some hemostatic agents were demonstrated to achieve hemostasis faster than others, most are able to control bleeding within <10 minutes. Based on the limited data, the least expensive agents might suffice for limited suture lines used in routine procedures.
