FLOSEAL Hemostatic Matrix | Clinical Information

Featured Video

Featured Video

Mechanism of Action
See how FLOSEAL works to stop bleeding fast

Featured Clinical Study

Featured Clinical Study

Comparing flowable hemostats in spine surgery

Needle-free Simplicity

Needle-free Simplicity

Everything you expect from FLOSEAL - except the needle

FLOSEAL vs non-flowable hemostats

Clinical Study Results

In a prospective, randomized, controlled trial for cardiovascular surgery, a cohort of patients with intraoperative bleeding was treated with FLOSEAL Matrix (n=110) or control (n=104), with either SURGICEL hemostat or GELFOAM sponge. The number of patients requiring transfusion of blood products or with minor complications (renal failure, respiratory insufficiency, or inotropic support lasting more than 24 hours), as well as the operative time and number of patients with surgical revisions for bleeding, were significantly less in the FLOSEAL Matrix group. No difference in major complications (stroke, shock, sepsis, or myocardial infarction) or ICU stay was observed between groups. during the study.

Compared to SURGICEL and GELFOAM, FLOSEAL Hemostatic Matrix has been shown to provide:1

  • 53% lower transfusion rate
  • 67% lower revision rate
  • 24 minutes less operative time*
non-flowable hemostats
non-flowable hemostats
non-flowable hemostats
non-flowable hemostats

*Between decannulation and closure of the sternum

  1. Nasso G, Piancone F, Bonifazi R, et al. Prospective, randomized clinical trial of the FloSeal matrix sealant in cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88:1520-1526.