Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, MemorialCare Health System, Long Beach, California.
Cardiothoracic Surgery, Portneuf Medical Center, Pocatello, Idaho.
Ann Thorac Surg. 2018 May;105(5):1357-1364. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.12.013. Epub 2018 Jan 12.
This study intended to evaluate the safety and hemostatic efficacy of a novel vascular sealant (Tridyne; Neomend, Inc, Irvine, CA) compared with an accepted adjunctive hemostatic agent applied to aortotomy and sutures lines in cardiovascular operations.
Patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, ascending aortic replacement, or aortic root replacement were randomly assigned 2:1 to Tridyne (n = 107) or Gelfoam Plus (Baxter Healthcare Corp, Hayward, CA) (n = 51). These groups were similar with regard to age, sex, race, medical history, duration of bypass and cross-clamping, and number of suture lines treated. Suture lines were treated after confirmation of some leakage but before formal removal of the clamp.
The median bleeding time was significantly lower for Tridyne versus Gelfoam Plus (0 versus 10.0 minutes, p < 0.0001). Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 59.4% of the Tridyne group versus 16.0% of Gelfoam Plus group (p < 0.0001). A significantly greater proportion of patients in the Tridyne group achieved successful hemostasis at the aortic suture line than patients in the Gelfoam Plus group (85.7% versus 40.0%, p < 0.0001). The Clinical Events Committee adjudicated 7 patients with possible device-related serious adverse events: 3 patients (2.9%) in the Tridyne group and 4 patients (8.2%) in the Gelfoam Plus group (p = 0.2097).
Tridyne was safe and effective when used as an adjunct to conventional hemostasis to treat high-pressure vessels in patients who receive anticoagulation agents, in reducing time to hemostasis, and in promoting both immediate and persistent hemostasis.
本研究旨在评估一种新型血管密封剂(Tridyne;Neomend,Inc,加利福尼亚州欧文)与一种公认的辅助止血剂相比,在心血管手术中应用于切开和缝线的主动脉的安全性和止血效果。
接受主动脉瓣置换、升主动脉置换或主动脉根部置换的患者被随机分配 2:1 接受 Tridyne(n=107)或 Gelfoam Plus(Baxter Healthcare Corp,加利福尼亚州海沃德)(n=51)。这两组在年龄、性别、种族、病史、体外循环和阻断时间以及处理的缝线数量方面相似。在确认有一些泄漏后但在正式移除夹钳之前处理缝线。
与 Gelfoam Plus 相比,Tridyne 的中位出血时间明显更短(0 与 10.0 分钟,p<0.0001)。Tridyne 组即刻止血的比例为 59.4%,而 Gelfoam Plus 组为 16.0%(p<0.0001)。Tridyne 组达到主动脉缝线成功止血的患者比例明显高于 Gelfoam Plus 组(85.7%与 40.0%,p<0.0001)。临床事件委员会裁定 7 例可能与器械相关的严重不良事件:Tridyne 组 3 例(2.9%),Gelfoam Plus 组 4 例(8.2%)(p=0.2097)。
在接受抗凝治疗的患者中,Tridyne 作为常规止血的辅助手段,用于治疗高压血管时是安全有效的,可缩短止血时间,促进即刻和持续止血。