Uncontrolled hemorrhage model evaluates eco-friendly embolization agents, suggesting effectiveness in reducing blood loss.
Background: Embolization is a key therapeutic option in interventional radiology for the management of acute arterial bleeding and solid organ injuries. While various embolic agents exist, there is a persistent clinical need for materials that are not only highly effective but also biocompatible, easy to deliver, and cost-effective. We aim to evaluate a new eco-friendly dry foam agar-based embolization agent (ABEA) in an uncontrolled solid organ hemorrhage model. Material and Methods: Ten pigs underwent a controlled splenic injury. After a 5 min free-bleeding period, five pigs were treated with splenic artery ABEA embolization, while the remaining five received no treatment and served as the control group. Follow-up angiography was performed immediately after embolization and at 5 and 15 min in the treated pigs. Mean arterial pressures and average blood loss volumes were evaluated for 120 min. Results: The control group showed continuous blood loss, leading to a significantly higher total blood loss than the ABEA-treated group (1451 mL vs. 611 mL at 120 min, p < 0.05). Mean arterial pressure (MAP) remained below the hemorrhagic shock threshold throughout the procedure in the control group, validating the model of uncontrolled hemorrhage. In addition, a significant stabilization of MAP was observed in treated pigs, remaining above the critical level of hemorrhagic shock and differed significantly from control group values. Conclusions: Embolization with ABEA maintained MAP above critical levels and significantly reduced blood loss volume in a hemorrhagic model. These results support the technical feasibility and short-term hemostatic performance of ABEA in an acute setting. While preliminary, this proof-of-concept has provided the basis for a validated clinical study currently underway to evaluate its effectiveness and safety in human patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ruimy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: