OBJECTIVES: The model objective is to estimate and compare the cost consequences to hospitals, using two different active flowable hemostatic matrices (i.e. Floseal and Surgiflo) in cardiac surgery. METHODS: Using clinical outcomes from a published retrospective (US Premier Hospital Database) comparative effectiveness analysis of two hemostatic matrices in cardiac surgery patients[1], a cost-consequence framework was utilized to model the economic impact to hospitals of their use. The average annual number of cardiac surgeries and costing of major and minor complications, blood transfusions, and surgical revisions was analyzed using the 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s (HCUP’s) National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (represents 95% of all U.S. community hospital discharges). Cost of hemostatic matrices and operating room (OR) was obtained from RED BOOK™ and published literature. All costs were adjusted to 2015 dollars using medical care consumer price index (CPI-medical care). One-way (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed by varying all variables within the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the point estimate or ±20% when CI was not available. RESULTS: Results suggest that by using Floseal (rather than Surgiflo), a hospital performing 245 cardiac surgeries annually could avoid 11 major complications, 31 minor complications, 9 surgical revisions, 79 blood transfusions, and 260 hrs. of OR time. Avoiding these outcomes corresponds to net annualized cost savings of $1.43 million, with complication avoidance as the largest contributor to this cost saving. The risk of surgical revisions, minor and major complications had the largest impact on savings in the OWSA. Monte-Carlo simulations showed that annual savings were greater than $1.43 million, in 56% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis supports that using Floseal instead of Surgiflo in cardiac surgery could potentially lead to sizable cost savings to hospitals.