The role of sealants for achieving anastomotic hemostasis in vascular surgery.

BACKGROUND

During vascular interventions, connections that link arteries, veins, or synthetic grafts, which are known as an 'anastomosis', may be necessary. Vascular anastomoses can bleed from the needle holes that result from the creation of the anastomoses. Various surgical options are available for achieving hemostasis, or the stopping of bleeding, including the application of sealants directly onto the bleeding vessels or tissues. Sealants are designed for use in vascular surgery as adjuncts when conventional interventions are ineffective and are applied directly by the surgeon to seal bleeding anastomoses. Despite the availability of several different types of sealants, the evidence for the clinical efficacy of these hemostatic adjuncts has not been definitively established in vascular surgery patients.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of sealants as adjuncts for achieving anastomotic site hemostasis in patients undergoing vascular surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist conducted systematic searches of the following databases: the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register via the Cochrane Register of Studies; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE via Ovid; Embase via Ovid ; and CINAHL via EBSCO. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for clinical trials. Reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews were also searched. The latest search date was 6 March 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared fibrin or synthetic sealant use with alternative interventions (e.g. manual compression, reversal of anticoagulation) for achieving anastomotic-site hemostasis in vascular surgery procedures. We included participants who underwent the creation of an anastomosis during vascular surgery. We excluded non-vascular surgery patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We have used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were time to hemostasis, failure of hemostatic intervention, and intraoperative blood loss. Our secondary outcomes were operating time, death from bleeding complications up to 30 days, postoperative bleeding up to 30 days, unplanned return to the operating room for bleeding complications management up to 30 days, quality of life, and adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 24 randomized controlled trials that included a total of 2376 participants who met the inclusion criteria. All trials compared sealant use with standard care controls, including oxidized cellulose, gelatin sponge, and manual compression. All trials were at high risk of performance bias, detection bias, and other sources of bias. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for risk of bias concerns, inconsistency, imprecision and possible publication bias. Combining data on time to hemostasis showed that sealant use may reduce the mean time to hemostasis compared to control (mean difference (MD) -230.09 seconds, 95% confidence interval (CI) -329.24 to -130.94; P < 0.00001; 7 studies, 498 participants; low-certainty evidence). Combining data on failure of hemostatic intervention showed that sealant use may reduce the rate of failure compared to control, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; P < 0.00001; 17 studies, 2120 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not detect any clear differences between the sealant and control groups for intraoperative blood loss (MD -32.69 mL, 95% CI -96.21 to 30.83; P = 0.31; 3 studies, 266 participants; low-certainty evidence); operating time (MD -18.72 minutes, 95% CI -40.18 to 2.73; P = 0.09; 4 studies, 436 participants; low-certainty evidence); postoperative bleeding (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; P = 0.09; 9 studies, 1216 participants; low-certainty evidence), or unplanned return to the operating room (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.69; P = 0.16; 8 studies, 721 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported death from bleeding or quality of life outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on meta-analysis of 24 trials with 2376 participants, our review demonstrated that sealant use for achieving anastomotic hemostasis in vascular surgery patients may result in reduced time to hemostasis, and may reduce rates of hemostatic intervention failure, although the evidence is very uncertain, when compared to standard controls. Our analysis showed there may be no differences in intraoperative blood loss, operating time, postoperative bleeding up to 30 days, and unplanned return to the operating room for bleeding complications up to 30 days. Deaths and quality of life could not be analyzed. Limitations include the risk of bias in all studies. Our review has demonstrated that using sealants may reduce the time required to achieve hemostasis and the rate of hemostatic failure. However, a significant risk of bias was identified in the included studies, and future trials are needed to provide unbiased data and address other considerations such as cost-effectiveness and adverse events with sealant use.