ArticleClinical endoscopy2025
A new hemostatic device for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing Coajet and Hemograsper in Korea.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is often accompanied by bleeding. Coajet, a new device containing an injection needle, has been found to be useful in achieving hemostasis through monopolar contact. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this new hemostatic device by comparing it to hemostatic forceps (Hemograsper).
methodsThis prospective, randomized, single-center study enrolled consecutive patients scheduled to undergo gastric ESD from February 2022 to January 2023. The Hemograsper group (HG) underwent hemostasis using the conventional method, whereas the Coajet group (CG) used this new tool for lesion marking, submucosal injection in the initial stage of ESD, and then for hemostasis.
resultsA total 56 patients were enrolled in this study (HG, 28; CG, 28). No significant differences in age, sex, diagnosis, location, endoscopic size, or morphology were observed between the two groups. No significant difference in total operative time (HG, 16.0±6.9 minutes vs. CG, 12.4±6.7 minutes; p=0.05) and hemostatic time (HG, 186.6±134.5 seconds vs. CG, 130.4±81.5 seconds; p=0.06) were observed between the two groups. No differences in other procedure-related variables, such as complete en-bloc resection rate, length of admission, grade of immediate bleeding, and delayed bleeding within 30 days (HG, n=1 vs. CG, n=1), were noted.
conclusionsThe new hemostatic device, Coajet, showed comparable efficacy to that of conventional hemostatic forceps for bleeding control and the prevention of delayed bleeding in gastric ESD.
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.