Two prospective, randomized controlled trials including a total of 206 subjects were performed to compare the safety and hemostatic effectiveness of EVARREST® with that of Standard of Care (defined as manual compression with or without a topical absorbable hemostat) when used as an adjunct to control bleeding after primary methods to achieve hemostasis (e.g., suture, cautery, ligature) proved ineffective or impractical during liver surgery.
The first study included 104 subjects (median age: 65 years; range 31 to 82 years): 58.7% of the subjects were male; 95.2% were White/Caucasian; 1.9% were Asian; and 1% were Black. Median body mass index was 27kg/m2 (range: 15 to 43 kg/m2). Demographic characteristics were balanced across treatment groups.
A total of 84 subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio (40 randomized to EVARREST, 44 to Standard of Care). An additional 20 subjects were enrolled and treated with EVARREST during a non-randomized phase. One subject should have been randomized to EVARREST but was treated with Standard of Care. This subject was analyzed in the EVARREST group for the Intent to Treat Set.
EVARREST demonstrated a statistically significant difference compared with Standard of Care (82.5% versus 29.5%; p < 0.0001) in the proportion of subjects achieving hemostatic success at 4 minutes after identification of the target bleeding site and randomization, with no re-bleeding requiring treatment any time prior to initiation of wound closure (Table 5). The treatment difference between EVARREST and Standard of Care was greater in subjects with bleeding from abnormal hepatic tissue (e.g., cirrhotic or steatotic) than in subjects with normal tissue bleeding (65.2% versus 48.8%, respectively).
Table 5. Subjects Achieving Hemostasis at 4 Minutes from Identification of the Target Bleeding Site and Randomization, with no Re-bleeding until Fascial Closure at the End of the Surgery| EVARREST® | Standard of Care | p-value | Treatment Difference | 95% Confidence Interval |
|---|
| 33/40 (82.5%) | 13/44 (29.5%) | <0.0001 | 53.0% | 32.9%, 68.5% |
Efficacy data for the 20 non-randomized subjects treated with EVARREST were supportive of the above findings, with 20/20 subjects (100.0%) achieving hemostatic success at 4 minutes after identification of the target bleeding site and randomization. No re-bleeding requiring treatment occurred any time prior to the initiation of wound closure.
The second study included 102 subjects (median age: 63 years; range 23 to 85 years) randomized in a 1:1 ratio (50 randomized to EVARREST, 52 to Standard of Care). Sixty-one percent of the subjects were male; 85.3% were White/Caucasian; 9.8% were Black; 2.9% were Asian; and 3% were Hispanic. Median body mass index was 27kg/m2 (range: 15 to 43 kg/m2). Demographic characteristics were balanced across the treatment groups.
EVARREST demonstrated a statistically significant difference compared with Standard of Care (96% versus 46.2%; p < 0.0001) in the proportion of subjects achieving hemostatic success at 4 minutes after identification of the target bleeding site and randomization. No re-bleeding requiring treatment occurred at any time prior to initiation of wound closure (Table 6). The treatment difference between EVARREST and Standard of Care was shown to be greater in subjects undergoing non-anatomic resection than in subjects undergoing anatomic resection (58.1% versus 39.5%, respectively). Data from this study further support the efficacy of EVARREST as an adjunct to hemostasis in the control of bleeding in liver surgery.
Table 6. Subjects Achieving Hemostasis at 4 Minutes from Identification of the Target Bleeding Site and Randomization, with no Re-bleeding until Fascial Closure at the End of the Surgery| EVARREST® | Standard of Care | p-value | Treatment Difference | 95% Confidence Interval |
|---|
| 48/50 (96.0%) | 24/52 (46.2%) | <0.0001 | 49.8% | 34.5%, 63.5% |