Trial reportEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2026
Efficacy of AriClot™ hemostatic powder versus standard pressure dressing for bleeding control in civilian penetrating trauma: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective bleeding control is critical in trauma care to reduce morbidity and mortality. AriClot™ is a novel modified absorbable starch-based hemostatic powder (sodium carboxymethyl starch) that rapidly adsorbs fluid to concentrate clotting factors and form a gel barrier. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of AriClot™ hemostatic powder with standard cotton gauze in controlling bleeding in trauma patients to address a gap in the literature where RCTs on hemostatic powders for trauma are scarce.
methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted at Rajaee Emergency and Trauma Center, Shiraz, Iran, from June to September 2025. Fifty patients with traumatic wounds were randomized to receive either AriClot hemostatic powder (n = 27) or cotton gauze (n = 23). One patient in the control group was lost to follow-up, leaving 49 patients for analysis (27 AriClot, 22 cotton gauze). The primary outcome was bleeding control success rate at 3 and 6 min, with secondary outcomes including rebleeding events and investigator opinions on treatment efficacy and early side effects. Success in bleeding control was defined as no visible bleeding from the wound, assessed by outcome assessors using visual inspection.
resultsAriClot demonstrated significantly higher success rates in bleeding control at both 3 min (81.08% vs. 31.03%, p < 0.0001) and 6 min (89.19% vs. 51.72%, p = 0.0016) compared to cotton gauze. Rebleeding occurred less frequently in the AriClot group (21.62% vs. 48.27%, p = 0.0255). Investigator opinions favored AriClot, with a median score of 3.0 (IQR 2.0–3.0) versus 2.0 (IQR 1.0–3.0) for cotton gauze (p = 0.0051). Adverse events were minimal, with only a slight increase in self-limit burning sensation reported in the AriClot group (10.8% vs. 3.4%).
conclusionAriClot hemostatic powder is more effective than cotton gauze in controlling bleeding in trauma patients, with a favorable safety profile. These findings support its use as a frontline intervention in emergency trauma care, pending confirmation in larger, multicenter trials. Trial Registration: (IRCT20121117011491N3).
Indexed as
Identifiers
41801396What 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.