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.