Perhaps no other single mode of therapy is applied with such empiricism and as illogically as the administration of hemostatic agents. This criticism does not apply to the administration of specific therapy where the diagnosis has been established, such as the use of antihemophilic globulin in a patient with hemophilia. Rather, it is directed to the inappropriate use of an ever-increasing number of hemostatic agents some of which would seem to have little chance of providing significant benefit to the patient.
It is understandable that the physician faced with the problem of severe hemorrhage of unexplained etiology is going to resort to any therapeutic measure that may be beneficial no matter how empirical the approach. Unfortunately, and at times inexcusably, this approach to therapy often precedes an adequate appraisal of the hemostatic mechanism in the bleeding patient. In many respects this train of events is "a sign of the times"