ArticlePloS one2025
User experience and hemostatic efficacy: Comparative analysis of commercial agents in junctional and hepatic hemorrhage models.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesHemorrhage is associated with most preventable combat-related deaths. Management of non-compressible truncal and junctional hemorrhage remains challenging, especially with prolonged evacuations. This study evaluated the efficacy of commercial topical hemostatic agents in uncontrolled hemorrhage models under coagulopathic conditions, examining differences based on applicator experience.
methodsSixty Yorkshire swine were randomized to 5 groups: Combat Gauze (CG), Celox Rapid (CR), ChitoSAM 100 (CS), EVARREST® Fibrin Sealant Patch (EP), and X-Stat 30 (XS). After 50% hemodilution, a 5 mm femoral arteriotomy or 6 cm liver laceration was created, and the agents were applied as per device instructions. Hemostatic agents were placed by experienced (≥5 previous applications) or non-experienced (<5 previous applications) users. Animals were then monitored for rebleeding for 60 minutes.
resultsIn the junctional hemorrhage model, only ChitoSAM required more applications by novice applicators (2.3 vs. 1, p = 0.0104). No significant differences in rebleed rates among devices (CG 0%, CS 33%, CR 17%, EP 17%, XS 33%, p = 0.73) or by user experience were observed. No differences in perfusion were noted on angiography. In the hepatic laceration model, no significant differences in applications or rebleed rates for any agent (CG 0%, CS 50%, CR 17%, EP 17%, XS 0%, p = 0.21) or by user experience were found. Overall survival did not significantly vary by device.
conclusionAll 5 hemostatic agents showed similar efficacy in controlling junctional and intra-abdominal hemorrhage, with no significant differences in hemostasis, rebleed rate, or survival by experience level. However, more ChitoSAM applications were needed for junctional hemorrhage control in the absence of experience. All tested dressings show promise for rapid hemorrhage control.
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.