Trial reportJournal of neurointerventional surgery2026
A hydrogel vascular closure device for hemostasis after transfemoral intervention: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in Journal of neurointerventional surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chitosan-Based Hydrogels in Vascular Tissue Engineering Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Research Progress in Biomedical Materials.Biomolecules · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this randomized controlled trial we aim to validate the efficacy and safety of a hydrogel vascular closure device (VCD) for hemostasis after transfemoral intervention.
methodsBetween January and August 2023, 212 patients were enrolled, including 202 in a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial (1:1 hydrogel vs ExoSeal; prespecified margin -10%) and 10 in a hydrogel-only observational arm (8 F). The primary endpoint was device success rate and secondary endpoints including hemostasis time and procedural blood loss.
resultsAmong 102 hydrogel and 100 ExoSeal recipients, hydrogel had non-inferior success rates (99.02% vs 94.00%; 95% CI -0.27% to 11.74%). Hydrogel achieved significantly faster hemostasis (1.99 vs 3.14 min, P<0.001) and reduced blood loss (0.83 mL vs 8.93 mL, P<0.001). No major access site complications were observed in either group. No secondary complications occurred in patients in the experimental group and secondary complications occurred in one patient in the control group (P=0.497). The supplementary cohort of 10 patients supported the efficacy and safety of hydrogel VCD.
conclusionsHydrogel VCD shows non-inferior efficacy to ExoSeal for transfemoral cerebrovascular interventions, with superior hemostatic speed and reduced blood loss while maintaining comparable safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2300068029 (https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=178962).
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.