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

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 < .001 for superiority). The secondary efficacy endpoint was also met, with 92.5% of the CP group achieving hemostasis at 5 minutes versus 44.2% in the HM group, a difference of 48.2% (31.1%-65.4%; P < .001 for noninferiority). There were no device-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, comparison of CP to HM revealed CP superiority and noninferiority for TTTH at 3 and 5 minutes, respectively.

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a new hemostatic powder using a quantitative surface bleeding severity scale.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: The safety and efficacy of a hemostatic powder (HP) versus a control agent, absorbable gelatin sponge and thrombin (G + T), were assessed, using a validated, quantitative bleeding severity scale. METHODS: Subjects were randomized to receive HP (256 subjects) or G + T (132 subjects) for treatment of minimal, mild, or moderate bleeding at 20 investigational sites. The primary efficacy endpoint was non-inferiority of HP relative to G + T for success at achieving hemostasis within 6 minutes. Secondary endpoints in rank order included: superiority of HP relative to G + T in mean preparation time; non-inferiority of HP relative to G + T for achieving hemostasis within 3 min; superiority of HP relative to G + T for achieving hemostasis within 6 min; and superiority of HP relative to G + T for success for achieving hemostasis within 3 min. RESULTS: A total of 388 subjects were included in the primary efficacy analysis. At 6 min, hemostasis was achieved in 93.0% (238/256) of the HP group compared to 77.3% (102/132) of the G + T group (non-inferiority P < 0.0001, superiority P < 0.0001). All secondary endpoints were met. Complications were comparable between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: HP had superior rates of hemostasis, shorter preparation time, and a similar safety profile compared to G + T in this prospective, randomized trial using quantitative bleeding severity criteria.

SPOT GRADE II: Clinical Validation of a New Method for Reproducibly Quantifying Surgical Wound Bleeding: Prospective, Multicenter, Multispecialty, Single-Arm Study.

The SPOT GRADE (SG), a Surface Bleeding Severity Scale, is a unique visual method for assessing bleeding severity based on quantitative determinations of blood flow. This study assessed the reliability of the SG scale in a clinical setting and collected initial data on the safety and efficacy of HEMOBLAST Bellows (HB), a hemostatic agent, in abdominal and orthopedic operations. Twenty-seven patients were enrolled across 3 centers and received the investigational device. Bleeding severity and hemostasis were independently assessed by 2 surgical investigators at baseline and at 3, 6, and 10 minutes after application of HB and compared for agreement. The mean paired κ statistic for assignment of SG scores was .7754. The mean paired κ statistics for determining eligibility for participation in the trial based on bleeding severity and the mean paired κ statistics determining the presence of hemostasis were .9301 and .9301, respectively. The proportion of patients achieving hemostasis within 3, 6, and 10 minutes of HB application were 50.0%, 79.2%, and 91.7%, respectively. There were no unanticipated adverse device effects and one possible serious adverse device effect, as determined by the Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC). The reliability of the SG scale was validated in a clinical setting. Initial data on the safety and efficacy of HB in abdominal and orthopedic operations were collected, and there were no concerns raised by the investigators or the IDMC.