Skip to main content
CVIR Endovascular
Download PDF

A multicenter prospective study evaluating use of EmboCube™ Embolization Gelatin alone or in combination with other embolic agents to control bleeding

CVIR Endovascular volume 8, Article number: 50 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Embolization is a vital endovascular procedure that can be used to quickly achieve hemostasis in patients experiencing uncontrolled bleeding. This study was conducted to describe real-world outcomes following embolization with a pre-cut absorbable gelatin sponge to control bleeding.

Methods

This prospective study was conducted across five hospitals in Australia and France. Inclusion criteria included adults ≥ 18 years who required embolization with EmboCube™ Embolization Gelatin for bleeding. Primary performance and safety endpoints were the proportion of patients that achieved clinical success (i.e., cessation of bleeding post-embolization, the absence of rebleeding at the treated site requiring reintervention within 24 h), and the absence of unanticipated serious adverse device effects within 24 h of the initial embolization, respectively. Secondary endpoints included technical success and serious device- and/or procedure-related adverse events 28 days post-initial embolization.

Results

A total of 101 patients (54 males) were enrolled and treated. Sixty-six patients were treated with EmboCube only, 35 patients were treated with an additional embolic to control bleeding. Technical and clinical success rates were 100% and 99%, respectively. No patient experienced an unanticipated serious event related to the embolic. The mean time to hemostasis was 3.4 (± 3.96) minutes. Of the 90 patients that completed 28 days of follow-up, 4 (4.4%) experienced an adverse event (access site hematoma, n = 2; ischemic colitis, n = 1, peritonitis, n = 1).

Conclusion

EmboCube is safe and effective for control of acute and sub-acute arterial bleeding, alone or in combination with other embolic agents, when rapid hemostasis is required.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov. Registered 23 March 2022, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05307783.

Graphical Abstract

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Bleeding can result from trauma- (e.g., pelvic, visceral) and non-trauma-related (e.g., spontaneous, gynecologic, iatrogenic) causes [1, 2]. The inability to control bleeding is a leading cause of preventable death [3]. Hemorrhage control is critical to lowering mortality [4]. Embolization is an expedient nonsurgical intervention often used to achieve hemostasis in diseased or ruptured vasculature [5,6,7]. Several types of temporary (e.g., absorbable gelatin sponge) and permanent (e.g., coils, calibrated microspheres, liquid agents such as N-Butyl-Cyanoacrylate or NBCA) embolics are available for the occlusion of blood vessels [5, 8,9,10,11,12,13]. The type of embolic, or combination of embolic agents, to control bleeding is determined based on several factors such as vessel size, location, flow dynamics, extent of hemorrhage, pre-existing coagulopathy, and physician preference [14, 15].

Of the available products, gelatin-based embolics have been used as an intravascular embolic agent for over 50 years [5, 16]. Since its first reported use in 1945 [17], several studies have reported successful use of gelatin-based embolics for cessation of trauma-related bleeding [9, 18] and to stop bleeding in areas such as the gastrointestinal tract, spleen, uterus/pelvis, and kidney [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. In general, gelatin-based embolics (i.e., gelatin sponge) are considered a safe and effective agent to control bleeding. According to the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) guidelines, gelatin sponges are particularly recommended in locations where rapid but temporary occlusion may be desired, commonly following pelvic trauma when used non-selectively [33]. Although the clinical utility of gelatin-based embolics has been recognized by different treatment guidelines, there is no universal standard regarding which embolic, or combination of agents, to use [34, 35]. As a result, treatment practices can vary across indications.

In 2022, the gelatin-based embolic, EmboCube™ Embolization Gelatin, received the Conformité Européenne (CE) Mark in Europe. A beneficial aspect of EmboCube is its availability in the form of pre-cut cubes. Prior to the emergence of EmboCube, clinicians manually cut gelatin sheets, which was a potentially time-consuming task resulting in non-uniform particles. Evidence indicates that EmboCube is associated with high rates of technical and clinical success [36, 37]. However, there is an on-going need for data confirming its benefit to patients. This study describes clinical outcomes following use of EmboCube in real-world practice to control bleeding due to a broad spectrum of causes among patients in Australia and France.

Methods

Study design

This was a prospective study conducted across five centers, two in France, three in Australia. To be eligible for inclusion in the study, consecutive patients were required to be ≥ 18 years of age, require embolization for bleeding that could be performed in accordance with the device’s Instructions for Use, and provide written and informed consent. The full list of country-specific inclusion and exclusion criteria are provided in Table 1. The eligibility criteria were broad as a key objective of this study was to capture real-world use of EmboCube Embolization Gelatin (Merit Medical Systems, Inc., South Jordan, Utah, USA), including the wide spectrum of bleeding indications, treated vessels, and patient profiles.

Table 1 Country-specific inclusion and exclusion criteria
Full size table

This study was conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice, and independent ethics committees and local and national regulatory requirements. The study is reported according to the STROBE guidelines.

Device

EmboCube is a sterile ready-to-use device that consists of biocompatible, hydrophilic, and dry pre-cut cubes of resorbable 100% porcine gelatin packaged in a 10-mL syringe with a standard luer lock tip. All available sizes (2.5 mm and 5.0 mm) and weight configurations (25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg) of EmboCube were available for use in this study.

Procedure

All procedures were performed in accordance with the standard operating protocols at each participating center and the device’s Instructions for Use. EmboCube sizes were selected after the diameter of the vessel(s) responsible for bleeding was measured. Following hydration of EmboCube within the 10 mL syringe using a 1:1 mixture of 0.9% saline and iodinated contrast (Omnipaque 300/350, GE Healthcare, Chicago, Illinois, USA), under fluoroscopic imaging, the embolic was injected into the delivery microcatheter positioned at the target vessel requiring occlusion. EmboCube was administered according to flow and hemorrhage dynamics, after waiting for a short period of time, typically 1- to 2-min intervals (determined by the treating physician), flow was observed before check angiography was performed to confirm vessel occlusion. All procedures were performed by certified interventional radiologists (OP, JF, GS, RC, WC) with > 20 years of experience in arterial embolization.

Study measures and outcomes

The primary effectiveness endpoint was clinical success, defined as cessation of bleeding post-embolization and the absence of rebleeding at the treated site requiring reintervention (i.e., repeat embolization or additional surgery) within 24 h following the index procedure. The primary safety endpoint was the absence of unanticipated serious adverse device effects within 24 h following the index procedure.

Secondary endpoints included the following: (1) the incidence of adverse events (serious and device and/or procedure-related) to 24 h post procedure; (2) the incidence of adverse events (serious and device- and/or procedure-related) between 24 h and 28 days post procedure; (3) technical success, defined as successful occlusion of the target area determined by the physician based on post-embolization angiography; and (4) the incidence of device observations relating to EmboCube.

An independent physician adjudicator was responsible for systematically reviewing and adjudicating all serious adverse events related to the device and procedure, including deaths, as well as any adverse event potentially related to the device and procedure. The independent physician adjudicator was experienced in interventional peripheral vascular procedures to occlude blood flow and control bleeding and was entirely independent of the study sponsor and all participating centers.

Analysis

Study measures and outcomes were summarized using descriptive statistics. Mean, standard deviation, and median were used to summarize continuous data; categorical data were reported using percentages. As this study was purely descriptive, no hypothesis testing was conducted.

Results

Patient demographics

A total of 101 patients were enrolled and treated, 51 were from France and 50 were from Australia. Over the 28-day study period, a total of 4 patients were lost to follow up and 7 patients died. Table 2 summarizes patient demographics and medical history. Approximately half of all patients were male (53.5%). The three most prevalent comorbidities reported in patients’ medical history were hypertension (40.6%), active malignancy (28.7%), and history of bleeding (24.8%). Fifty-three patients (52.5%) were on an anticoagulant/antiplatelet medication at the time of hemorrhage. The most common anticoagulant/antiplatelet medications were enoxaparin (24.8%) and aspirin (17.8%).

Table 2 Patient demographics, medical history, and baseline medications
Full size table

Procedural characteristics

Table 3 summarizes procedural characteristics. The most common indication for embolization was trauma (32.7%). The mean procedure time was 66.9 min (± 43.74) and the mean time to hemostasis following embolization was 3.4 min (± 3.96). The main vessel used for access was the femoral artery (85.1%).

Table 3 Procedure Characteristics
Full size table

The mean total volume of prepared EmboCube administered was 13.8 mL (± 17.55). A total of 171 devices were used in this study; the median number of devices was 1.0 per patient. The most commonly used sizes were 5.0 mm, 50 mg (55.6%, 95/171) and 2.5 mm, 50 mg (28.1%, 48/171).

Sixty-six patients (65.3%) were treated with EmboCube only. Thirty-five patients (34.7%) were treated with additional embolic agents. Table 4 summarizes the specific embolic agents used.

Table 4 Embolic devices used during the study
Full size table

Technical success was achieved for all treated patients. No evidence of unintended embolization was observed during the index procedure.

Effectiveness and safety outcomes

Clinical success was achieved in 100 of 101 treated patients (99%). No difference in clinical success was observed among patients treated with EmboCube only compared to EmboCube in combination with another embolic agent.

One patient required a re-intervention within the 24-h period following the index procedure to treat bleeding that occurred within the vessels treated as well as several other vessels that subsequently required embolization. For this patient, the indication for the index procedure was a biopsy tract-related bleed in the right lumbar L3 artery with prophylactic embolization of the adjacent lumbar arteries (L1, L2, L4). Although the treated area was successfully occluded in this patient, due to evidence of deterioration on the same day of the procedure, a repeat angiogram was performed, and embolization of the same vessels was deemed necessary using coils and NBCA. The adverse event reported for this patient was attributed to therapeutic anticoagulant usage which could not be ceased. No patient experienced an unanticipated serious adverse event related to EmboCube within 24 h of the procedure.

Among the 90 patients that completed the 28-day follow up, 4 patients (4.4%) experienced a serious adverse event between 24 h and 28 days following the procedure. These four adverse events are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5 Summary of adjudicated serious adverse events due to EmboCube or the embolization procedure
Full size table

A total of 7 patients died during the study. None of the deaths were related to EmboCube, or the embolization procedure. Causes of death were cancer (n = 1) 16 days post procedure, cirrhosis (n = 1) 23 days post procedure, multi-organ failure (n = 1) 6 days post procedure, and progressive deterioration of liver function (n = 1) 11 days post procedure. Two patients died due to unspecified sequelae of blood loss, one 11 days after the index procedure and another 23 days post procedure.

Discussion

This study describes clinical outcomes following use of a pre-cut absorbable gelatin sponge to control bleeding in patients treated at hospitals in Australia and France. Over one third of the patients included in this study underwent embolization due to trauma (32.7%). The high rates of technical success (100%) and clinical success (99%) suggest that the pre-cut gelatin sponge used can effectively contribute to the delivery of life-saving care to critically unwell patients across a variety of indications alone, or in combination with other agents. Among the patients who died during the study period, none of the deaths were device- or procedure-related. As there were no unanticipated serious adverse events associated with the embolic used, and the rate of all-cause serious adverse events were low (4.4%), its safety profile is considered tolerable, especially within the context of the urgent care required.

The favorable performance and safety profiles of EmboCube reported in this study align with results from prior studies that have documented the clinical utility of gelatin-based embolics for a variety of bleeding indications [25,26,27,28,29,30,31, 38]. For example, a study published in 2021 describing clinical outcomes in 23 patients treated with Gelfoam® in combination with coils for hemorrhoidal bleeding reported a technical success rate of 100% [38]. In that study, clinical success, defined as a sustained ≥ 2-point improvement in the French bleeding severity score for ≥ 6 months with no complications, was achieved in 20 of the 23 patients (87%) [38]. A study published in 2024 that retrospectively analyzed 50 patients with pelvic arterial bleeding who were treated with Gelfoam between January 2020 and May 2021 reported a technical success rate of 100% and no complications [31]. In that study, the all-cause mortality rate was 10%, however none of the deaths were related to the device or the procedure.

Currently, there is no universal standard regarding which embolic agent is preferred for different bleeding indications; the choice of embolic agent(s) remains the discretion of the treating physician. Any embolic agent should be suited to the individual anatomy, flow dynamics, and urgency of a patient’s situation. A benefit of the EmboCube product is its pre-cut delivery in a sterile syringe, which allows rapid rehydration and administration, a particular advantage for patients actively bleeding. This is a tangible and time-saving solution compared to the need for the operator to manually cut and load traditional gelatin sponge into solution, which is commonly available in a sheet format designed for topical use. This is an important advantage as the standardization of EmboCube allows uniform pledgets to be injected each time leading to more predictable outcomes. In addition, the EmboCube platform is faster to prepare than many other embolic agents including NBCA, squid, onyx, and detachable coils.

In this study, physicians were allowed to treat patients with more than one embolic agent, based on their clinical judgement. As a result, this study provides valuable insight regarding real-world patient outcomes from care under different physicians from different practices. An important strength of this study is that it expands the current body of literature by providing evidence to suggest that there is no detrimental impact of periprocedural use of other embolic agents with a resorbable gelatin embolic. An additional strength of the present study is that it contained a larger sample of patients with diverse indications and different vessels requiring intervention, relative to prior studies focused on outcomes in smaller cohorts of patients with a single indication for the embolization procedure.

A key aspect of the literature to date is not the novel and minimal invasive nature of a gelatin-based agent in embolization procedures, but rather its ability to provide clinicians an essential and potentially life-saving resource for patients with urgent need [31]. This is of particular importance in Australia where endovascular use of the gelatin-based embolic Gelfoam is not currently approved for commercial use. Based on the high rates of technical and clinical success, as well as the low incidence of adverse events reported in this study, we anticipate that this study will assist healthcare stakeholders, including regulatory bodies, recognize the ability of a pre-cut gelatin-based embolic, alone or in combination with other agents, to meet the needs of urgent care for patients with bleeding.

This study was designed to capture clinical outcomes in real-world practice; all participating sites were requested to enroll consecutive patients to minimize selection bias. Nevertheless, this study was subject to certain limitations. As a purely descriptive uncontrolled cohort study, no hypothesis testing was conducted. Additionally, the time to hemostasis was not standardized across centers. While this study describes clinical outcomes of patients treated with EmboCube, 35 patients (34.7%) were treated with an additional embolic(s), although there was not a significant difference in clinical success. It is unclear whether use of additional embolics represented failure of EmboCube or standard practice patterns at each hospital. Use of a pre-cut gelatin-based embolic to control bleeding may necessitate use of additional embolics based on physician judgement of the vessel(s) to be treated. Despite these limitations, the present study does provide useful information regarding the safety and performance of EmboCube across different indications and vessels requiring intervention to control bleeding in France and Australia. The high rates of technical and clinical success, with few incidences of adverse events, give credence to the safety and effectiveness of the device used in this study, and may encourage its use more broadly for patients who require life-saving care to control bleeding, irrespective of whether other embolic agents were used previously, periprocedurally, or after EmboCube as part of standard practice.

Conclusions

Findings from this real-world study regarding the use of EmboCube, a pre-cut absorbable gelatin sponge, to treat bleeding in patients from France and Australia demonstrated that this embolic is associated with few adverse events and high rates of clinical and technical success, alone or in combination with other agents. As there is no consensus regarding which embolic agent should be used to control bleeding, findings from this study suggest that as a cost-effective, time-proven gelatin sponge, EmboCube should be considered as part of the embolization armamentarium wherever or whenever embolization procedures are required.

Data availability

Data are not publicly available to comply with patient confidentiality.

Abbreviations

CE:

Conformité Européenne

EAST:

Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

NBCA:

N-Butyl-Cyanoacrylate

References

  1. Horer TM, Ierardi AM, Carriero S, Lanza C, Carrafiello G, McGreevy DT. Emergent vessel embolization for major traumatic and non-traumatic hemorrhage: Indications, tools and outcomes. Semin Vasc Surg. 2023;36(2):283–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Johnstone C, Rich SE. Bleeding in cancer patients and its treatment: a review. Ann Palliat Med. 2018;7(2):265–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Maegele M. The Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Traumatic Bleeding and Coagulopathy. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2019;116(47):799–806.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Oyeniyi BT, Fox EE, Scerbo M, Tomasek JS, Wade CE, Holcomb JB. Trends in 1029 trauma deaths at a level 1 trauma center: Impact of a bleeding control bundle of care. Injury. 2017;48(1):5–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vaidya S, Tozer KR, Chen J. An overview of embolic agents. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2008;25(3):204–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Barral M, Pellerin O, Tran VT, Gallix B, Boucher LM, Valenti D, et al. Predictors of Mortality from Spontaneous Soft-Tissue Hematomas in a Large Multicenter Cohort Who Underwent Percutaneous Transarterial Embolization. Radiology. 2019;291(1):250–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dohan A, Darnige L, Sapoval M, Pellerin O. Spontaneous soft tissue hematomas. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2015;96(7–8):789–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hu J, Albadawi H, Chong BW, Deipolyi AR, Sheth RA, Khademhosseini A, et al. Advances in Biomaterials and Technologies for Vascular Embolization. Adv Mater. 2019;31(33): e1901071.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lopera JE. Embolization in trauma: principles and techniques. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2010;27(1):14–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee NJ, Shin JH, Lee SS, Park DH, Lee SK, Yoon HK. Transcatheter arterial embolization for iatrogenic bleeding after endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreaticobiliary drainage. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2018;99(11):717–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fohlen A, Tasu JP, Kobeiter H, Bartoli JM, Pelage JP, Guiu B. Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: Results of a French national survey on current practices. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2018;99(9):527–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mayer J, Tacher V, Novelli L, Djabbari M, You K, Chiaradia M, et al. Post-procedure bleeding in interventional radiology. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2015;96(7–8):833–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Djaber S, Bohelay G, Moussa N, Dean C, Del Giudicce C, Sapoval M, et al. Cutaneous necrosis after embolization of spontaneous soft-tissue hematoma of the abdominal wall. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2018;99(12):831–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Medsinge A, Zajko A, Orons P, Amesur N, Santos E. A case-based approach to common embolization agents used in vascular interventional radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(4):699–708.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Coldwell DM, Stokes KR, Yakes WF. Embolotherapy: agents, clinical applications, and techniques. Radiographics. 1994;14(3):623–43; quiz 45–6.

  16. Speakman TJ. Internal Occlusion of a Carotid-Cavernous Fistula. J Neurosurg. 1964;21:303–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jenkins HP, Janda R. Studies on the use of gelatin sponge or foam as an hemostatic agent in experimental liver resections and injuries to large veins. Ann Surg. 1946;124:952–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Bauer JR, Ray CE. Transcatheter arterial embolization in the trauma patient: a review. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2004;21(1):11–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Ramaswamy RS, Choi HW, Mouser HC, Narsinh KH, McCammack KC, Treesit T, et al. Role of interventional radiology in the management of acute gastrointestinal bleeding. World J Radiol. 2014;6(4):82–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Loffroy R, Favelier S, Pottecher P, Estivalet L, Genson PY, Gehin S, et al. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for acute variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: Indications, techniques and outcomes. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2015;96(7–8):745–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bandi R, Shetty PC, Sharma RP, Burke TH, Burke MW, Kastan D. Superselective arterial embolization for the treatment of lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12(12):1399–405.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang YL, Cheng YS, Liu LZ, He ZH, Ding KH. Emergency transcatheter arterial embolization for patients with acute massive duodenal ulcer hemorrhage. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18(34):4765–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Ahuja C, Farsad K, Chadha M. An Overview of Splenic Embolization. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205(4):720–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rasuli P, Moosavi B, French GJ, Petrcich W, Hammond I. Splenic Artery Embolization in Blunt Trauma: A Single-Center Retrospective Comparison of the Use of Gelatin Sponge Versus Coils. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(6):W382–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ganguli S, Stecker MS, Pyne D, Baum RA, Fan CM. Uterine artery embolization in the treatment of postpartum uterine hemorrhage. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22(2):169–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Park KJ, Shin JH, Yoon HK, Gwon DI, Ko GY, Sung KB. Postpartum hemorrhage from extravasation or pseudoaneurysm: efficacy of transcatheter arterial embolization using N-butyl cyanoacrylate and comparison with gelatin sponge particle. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26(2):154–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Descargues G, Mauger Tinlot F, Douvrin F, Clavier E, Lemoine JP, Marpeau L. Menses, fertility and pregnancy after arterial embolization for the control of postpartum haemorrhage. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(2):339–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kirby JM, Kachura JR, Rajan DK, Sniderman KW, Simons ME, Windrim RC, et al. Arterial embolization for primary postpartum hemorrhage. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;20(8):1036–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gaia G, Chabrot P, Cassagnes L, Calcagno A, Gallot D, Botchorishvili R, et al. Menses recovery and fertility after artery embolization for PPH: a single-center retrospective observational study. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(2):481–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dumousset E, Chabrot P, Rabischong B, Mazet N, Nasser S, Darcha C, et al. Preoperative uterine artery embolization (PUAE) before uterine fibroid myomectomy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2008;31(3):514–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Clements W, Lukies M, Zia A, Fitzgerald M, Kavnoudias H. Let us settle the controversy-gelfoam is a safe intravascular embolic agent. Br J Radiol. 2024;97(1157):933–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Pappas P, Leonardou P, Papadoukakis S, Zavos G, Michail S, Boletis J, et al. Urgent superselective segmental renal artery embolization in the treatment of life-threatening renal hemorrhage. Urol Int. 2006;77(1):34–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cullinane DC, Schiller HJ, Zielinski MD, Bilaniuk JW, Collier BR, Como J, et al. Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management guidelines for hemorrhage in pelvic fracture–update and systematic review. J Trauma. 2011;71(6):1850–68.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Miyayama S, Yamakado K, Anai H, Abo D, Minami T, Takaki H, et al. Guidelines on the use of gelatin sponge particles in embolotherapy. Jpn J Radiol. 2014;32(4):242–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Chakraverty S, Flood K, Kessel D, McPherson S, Nicholson T, Ray CE Jr, et al. CIRSE guidelines: quality improvement guidelines for endovascular treatment of traumatic hemorrhage. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35(3):472–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Spiliopoulos S, Katsanos K, Paraskevopoulos I, Mariappan M, Festas G, Kitrou P, et al. Multicenter retrospective study of transcatheter arterial embolisation for life-threatening haemorrhage in patients with uncorrected bleeding diathesis. CVIR Endovasc. 2020;3(1):95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Rudaitis V, Maldutyte G. Uterine Arteriovenous Malformation Treated with Selective Embolisation of Uterine Arteries: A Case Report. Acta Med Litu. 2021;28(1):153–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang X, Sheng Y, Wang Z, Wang W, Xia F, Zhao M, et al. Comparison of different embolic particles for superior rectal arterial embolization of chronic hemorrhoidal bleeding: gelfoam versus microparticle. BMC Gastroenterol. 2021;21(1):465.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Chris Rogan for his contribution to the study.

Editorial and analytical support for this article was provided by Merit Medical.

Funding

This study was funded by Merit Medical Systems, Inc. Merit Medical Systems, Inc. was involved in the design and conduct of the study; data collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation and review of the manuscript; decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Merit Medical Systems

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Vascular and Oncological Interventional Radiology, Université de Paris, PARCC, INSERM, F-75006 Paris Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France

    Olivier Pellerin & Carole Déan

  2. Department of Medical Imaging, IPI Plateform, Nîmes University Hospital, 30039, Nîmes, France

    Julien Frandon

  3. Department of Interventional Radiology, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Glen Schlaphoff & Ross Copping

  4. Department of Radiology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Warren Clements

  5. Department of Surgery, Monash University School of Translational Medicine, Melbourne, Australia

    Warren Clements

  6. National Trauma Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia

    Warren Clements

Authors
  1. Olivier Pellerin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julien Frandon
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Glen Schlaphoff
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ross Copping
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carole Déan
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Warren Clements
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All named authors contributed to drafting and editing of the submitted manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier Pellerin.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice, and independent ethics committees and local and national regulatory requirements.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

OP: consultancies for Merit Medical; PERSEA Co-Founder.

JF: consultancies for Balt Medical and Canon Medical.

GS: consultancies for Merit Medical, Boston Scientific, Siemens, GE Healthcare, TeraRecon.

RC: none.

CD: consultancies Merit Medical and Embobio Medical.

WC: none.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pellerin, O., Frandon, J., Schlaphoff, G. et al. A multicenter prospective study evaluating use of EmboCube™ Embolization Gelatin alone or in combination with other embolic agents to control bleeding. CVIR Endovasc 8, 50 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-025-00571-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-025-00571-w

Keywords