ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2015
Variation in hospital resource use and cost among surgical procedures using topical absorbable hemostats.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial evaluating the performance of a novel combination powder vs hemostatic matrix in cardiothoracic operations.Journal of cardiac surgery · 2020Trial
- Safety and Hemostatic Effectiveness of SURGICEL® Powder in Mild and Moderate Intraoperative Bleeding.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisTrial
- Oxidized regenerated cellulose particles enable high-pressure air-leak sealing on lung segmentectomy surfaces in porcine models.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Chitosan-Based Wound Dressings: Property Modulation, Fabrication Strategies, and Emerging Applications in Tissue Regeneration.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Recent Advances of Chitosan-Based Hydrogels for Skin-Wound Dressings.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Review of Evidence Supporting the Arista™ Absorbable Powder Hemostat.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Review
- Time-dependent effects of cellulose and gelatin-based hemostats on cellular processes of wound healing.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2023Article
- Efficacy of oxidized regenerated cellulose combined with fibrin glue in reducing pulmonary air leakage after segmentectomy in a porcine lung model.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Comparison of the efficacy of five standard topical hemostats: a study in porcine liver and spleen models of surgical bleeding.BMC surgery · 2020Article
- Traumastem Powder in Treatment of Non-Traumatic Anterior Epistaxis in Emergency Department; a Randomized Clinical Trial.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2020Article
- An in vivo comparison of the efficacy of hemostatic powders, using two porcine bleeding models.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdjunctive hemostats are used to assist with the control of intraoperative bleeding. The most common types are flowables, gelatins, thrombins, and oxidized regenerated celluloses (ORCs). In the US, Surgicel(®) products are the only US Food and Drug Administration-approved ORCs.
objectiveTo compare the outcomes of health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with using ORCs compared to other adjunctive hemostats (OAHs are defined as flowables, gelatins, and topical thrombins) for surgical procedures in the US inpatient setting. PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective, US-based cohort study was conducted using hospital inpatient discharges from the 2011-2012 calendar years in the Premier Healthcare Database. Patients with either an ORC or an OAH who underwent a cardiovascular procedure (valve surgery and/or coronary artery bypass graft surgery), carotid endarterectomy, cholecystectomy, or hysterectomy were included. Propensity score matching was used to create comparable groups of ORC and OAH patients. Clinical, economic, and HRU outcomes were compared.
resultsThe propensity score matching created balanced patient cohorts for cardiovascular procedure (22,718 patients), carotid endarterectomy (10,890 patients), cholecystectomy (6,090 patients), and hysterectomy (9,348 patients). In all procedures, hemostatic agent costs were 28%-56% lower for ORCs, and mean hemostat units per discharge were 16%-41% lower for ORCs compared to OAHs. Length of stay and total procedure costs for patients treated with ORCs were lower for carotid endarterectomy patients (0.3 days and US$700) and for cholecystectomy patients (1 day and US$3,350) (all P<0.001).
conclusionCosts and HRU for patients treated with ORCs were lower than or similar to patients treated with OAHs. Proper selection of the appropriate hemostatic agents has the potential to influence clinical outcomes and treatment costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.