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.

Duke Scholars

Author Steven Arthur Olson Orthopaedic Surgery

Author Michael E. Kelly Surgery

Author Brian David Lewis Orthopaedic Surgery

Author Jacob Niall Schroder Surgery, Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery