ArticleBMC gastroenterology2024
Effectiveness of a thrombin-gelatin flowable for treating severe liver bleeding: an experimental study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent scientific evidence has pointed out the relevance of hemostatic products for improving clinical outcomes in liver trauma, including increased survival rates and reductions in bleeding-related complications. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of the gelatin-thrombin flowable (Flowable) versus the standard technique of Packing in a new experimental liver injury model.
methodsTwenty-four swine were prospectively randomized to receive either Flowable or standard packing technique. We used a novel severe liver injury model, in which the middle and left suprahepatic veins were selectively injured, causing an exsanguinating hemorrhage. The main outcome measure was the percentage of lost blood volume.
resultsThe median total percentage of total blood volume per animal lost, from injury to minute 120, was significantly lower in the Flowable group (15.2%; interquartile range: 10.7-46.7%) than in the Packing group (64.9%; Interquartile range: 53.4-73.0%) (Hodges-Lehmann median difference: 41.1%; 95% CI: 18.9-58.0%, p = 0.0034). The 24-hour survival rate was significantly higher in the Flowable group (87.0%) than in the Packing group (0.0%) (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.08; 95% confidence interval 0.102 to 0.27; p < 0.0001). Mean-arterial pressure was significantly lower at minute 60 and 120 in the Flowable group than in the packing group (p = 0.0258 and p = 0.0272, respectively). At minute 120, hematocrit was higher in the Flowable than in the packing group (Hodges-Lehmann median difference: 5.5%; 95%CI: 1.0 to11.0, p = 0.0267). Finally, the overall-surgical-procedure was significantly shorter with Flowable than with Packing (Hodges-Lehmann median difference: 39.5 s, 95% CI: 25.0 to 54.0 s, p = 0.0004).
conclusionsThe use of the Flowable was more effective in achieving hemostasis, reducing blood loss, and improving survival rates than standard packing in a severe porcine-liver bleeding model.
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.