Hemostasis During Urologic Surgery: Fibrin Sealant Compared With Absorbable Hemostat

In the United States, fibrin sealants have been used to achieve hemostasis for nearly two decades. Although their clinical utility was first demonstrated in cardiac surgery, their effectiveness and safety have since been demonstrated to extend to a wide array of procedures. Fibrin sealants typically contain two components—fibrinogen and thrombin—that are combined and delivered simultaneously to a target bleeding site in order to achieve hemostasis. However, many commercial formulations contain other additional components, such as antifibrinolytic agents, that have been associated with adverse outcomes. This subanalysis compares the safety and effectiveness of a fibrin sealant versus an absorbable hemostat for achieving hemostasis during urologic procedures with mild to moderate bleeding.Key words: Hemostasis, Hemostatics, Fibrin tissue adhesive, Urologic surgical procedures, Surgical techniqueIn the United States, fibrin sealants have been used to achieve hemostasis for nearly two decades. Although their clinical utility was first demonstrated in cardiac surgery,¹ their effectiveness and safety have since been demonstrated to extend to a wide array of procedures, including cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, pneumothoracic, neurologic, urologic, otolaryngologic, dental, and reconstructive surgeries.^2,3 Within the field of urology, fibrin sealants have been used to manage bleeding from renal trauma,⁴ as well as to facilitate hemostasis during renal surgeries, including partial nephrectomies.^5–7Fibrin sealants typically contain two components—fibrinogen and thrombin—that are combined and delivered simultaneously to a target bleeding site (TBS) in order to achieve hemostasis.³ Many commercial formulations contain other additional components, such as antifibrinolytic agents, that have been associated with adverse outcomes. For example, in an observational study (N = 4374), the antifibrinolytic aprotinin was associated with an increased risk of long-term mortality within 5 years following coronary artery bypass graft surgery.⁸ Furthermore, repeated exposure to aprotinin may lead to allergic or potentially fatal anaphylactic reactions.^9–11 For this reason, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an alert in 2006 indicating that caution should be used when using aprotinin in patients with a history of previous exposure to the product.¹² Tranexamic acid, another antifibrinolytic present in some commercial fibrin sealants, has been associated with alterations in neural tissue growth and adherence.¹³ Because of the risk of cerebral neurologic toxicity, fibrin sealants containing tranexamic acid are contraindicated for use in neurosurgery or in surgical procedures during which contact with cerebrospinal fluid or dura mater may occur.¹⁴In a phase III, randomized, single-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study,¹⁵ the fibrin sealant CROSSEAL™ (Ethicon, Inc., Somerville, NJ) significantly reduced the time to hemostasis during liver resection surgery compared with conventional hemostatic techniques. EVICEL® Fibrin Sealant (Human) (Ethicon, Inc.), the successor of CROSSEAL, requires no antifibrinolytic additive and is therefore both aprotinin and tranexamic acid free, and achieves hemostasis using exclusively human components.¹⁶ The effectiveness and safety of this fibrin sealant for hemostasis in soft tissue during elective retroperitoneal or intra-abdominal surgery were compared with an absorbable hemostat (SURGICEL® Absorbable Hemostat; Ethicon, Inc.) in a randomized, active-controlled, multicenter study.¹⁷ This article describes a subanalysis of data from the largest patient subgroup from that study, and evaluates the effectiveness and safety of a fibrin sealant versus an absorbable hemostat for patients who underwent urologic surgical procedures.