Passive, Active, or Both—What Hemostats Do Surgeons Choose in the Real World, and Should We Rethink It?

Kristen Knapp,1 Isabella G Armento,1 Rhea Parreno,2 Natalia Peres Martinez,2 Rory Tippit,2 John Chovanes1 1Department of Surgery, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ, USA; 2Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, IL, USACorrespondence: Rory Tippit, Baxter Healthcare Corporation, One Baxter Parkway, Deerfield, IL, 60015, USA, Tel +1 (224) 254 1246, Email [email protected]: This study evaluates the association between the type of topical haemostatic agents used during surgery—categorized as active, passive, or a combination of both—and their relationship with intraoperative blood loss and bleeding-related postoperative outcomes.Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted at Cooper Health System, Camden, New Jersey, US, using patient records to compare the clinical performance of three haemostatic strategies: active agents, passive agents, and a combined approach.Results: A total of 149 patients were included in the analysis: 51 treated with passive agents, 51 with active agents, and 47 with both. The mean age at admission was 55.9 years (SD ± 16.3). General surgery was the most frequently represented specialty (24.8%), followed by spine (22.1%), neurosurgery (16.8%), and solid organ procedures (16.1%). The combination group showed the highest estimated blood loss (EBL) at 521.3 mL (SD ± 1456.83; 95% CI: 93.5– 949.0), compared to 390.7 mL (SD ± 1004.81; CI: 108.1– 673.3) in the active group and 301.5 mL (SD ± 295.78; CI: 218.3– 384.7) in the passive group. However, ANCOVA results showed no statistically significant difference in adjusted mean EBL between groups (p = 0.309). Notably, patients in the combination group experienced longer operative times, extended ICU stays, and higher mortality.Conclusion: Numerical trends suggest greater bleeding and more complex postoperative courses in patients treated with the combination of active and passive haemostats. The use of standardized, validated measures of intraoperative bleeding, paired with a strategic approach that anticipates and manages bleeding complications, may support improved clinical outcomes.Keywords: bleeding, hemostat, patient blood management, hemostasis, trauma surgery

Publication Details

Journal
Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group)
Published
2025-11-04
Primary Topic
Hemostasis and retained surgical items
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Passive, Active, or Both—What Hemostats Do Surgeons Choose in the Real World, and Should We Rethink It?

Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group)
Hemostasis and retained surgical items
article

Passive, Active, or Both—What Hemostats Do Surgeons Choose in the Real World, and Should We Rethink It?

article en

Abstract

Kristen Knapp,1 Isabella G Armento,1 Rhea Parreno,2 Natalia Peres Martinez,2 Rory Tippit,2 John Chovanes1 1Department of Surgery, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ, USA; 2Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, IL, USACorrespondence: Rory Tippit, Baxter Healthcare Corporation, One Baxter Parkway, Deerfield, IL, 60015, USA, Tel +1 (224) 254 1246, Email [email protected]: This study evaluates the association between the type of topical haemostatic agents used during surgery—categorized as active, passive, or a combination of both—and their relationship with intraoperative blood loss and bleeding-related postoperative outcomes.Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted at Cooper Health System, Camden, New Jersey, US, using patient records to compare the clinical performance of three haemostatic strategies: active agents, passive agents, and a combined approach.Results: A total of 149 patients were included in the analysis: 51 treated with passive agents, 51 with active agents, and 47 with both. The mean age at admission was 55.9 years (SD ± 16.3). General surgery was the most frequently represented specialty (24.8%), followed by spine (22.1%), neurosurgery (16.8%), and solid organ procedures (16.1%). The combination group showed the highest estimated blood loss (EBL) at 521.3 mL (SD ± 1456.83; 95% CI: 93.5– 949.0), compared to 390.7 mL (SD ± 1004.81; CI: 108.1– 673.3) in the active group and 301.5 mL (SD ± 295.78; CI: 218.3– 384.7) in the passive group. However, ANCOVA results showed no statistically significant difference in adjusted mean EBL between groups (p = 0.309). Notably, patients in the combination group experienced longer operative times, extended ICU stays, and higher mortality.Conclusion: Numerical trends suggest greater bleeding and more complex postoperative courses in patients treated with the combination of active and passive haemostats. The use of standardized, validated measures of intraoperative bleeding, paired with a strategic approach that anticipates and manages bleeding complications, may support improved clinical outcomes.Keywords: bleeding, hemostat, patient blood management, hemostasis, trauma surgery

Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 27%
Hemostasis and retained surgical items
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Passive, Active, or Both—What Hemostats Do Surgeons Choose in the Real World, and Should We Rethink It? · Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS