Single versus double use of a suture-based closure device for transfemoral aortic valve implantation.
Access site bleeding
Aortic stenosis
ProGlide
Vascular complication
Journal
International journal of cardiology
ISSN: 1874-1754
Titre abrégé: Int J Cardiol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8200291
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 05 2021
15 05 2021
Historique:
received:
04
11
2020
revised:
11
01
2021
accepted:
22
01
2021
pubmed:
3
2
2021
medline:
29
5
2021
entrez:
2
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The most common method of percutaneous closure in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) employs two obtusely oriented ProGlide devices. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of using a single ProGlide system for primary access site closure in comparison with the double ProGlide approach in an all-comers TAVI population. Between March 2016 and December 2018, a total of 1105 patients underwent transfemoral TAVI for severe aortic stenosis at our center. Application of two ProGlide systems was standard until April 2017 (n = 432), whereas thereafter a single ProGlide system was used (n = 663). A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline differences between the two groups, resulting in 327 matched cases. Primary outcomes of interest were main access site-related vascular complications. The mean number of ProGlide devices used per patient was 1.03 (SD 0.2) in the single-ProGlide group versus 2.01 (SD 0.14) in the double-ProGlide group. An additional vascular closure device was required to obtain full hemostasis in 23.2% versus 9.5% of patients (p < 0.001) in the two groups, respectively. Technical success of ProGlide usage was similar (94.3% versus 92.1%, p = 0.163). In the matched cohorts, the rates of main access site-related major vascular complications were similar (4.0% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.217). The single-ProGlide technique is feasible, with rates of technical success similar to those of the double-ProGlide technique. Use of this method did not lead to more frequent access site-related complications but was more cost effective than the double-ProGlide approach.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The most common method of percutaneous closure in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) employs two obtusely oriented ProGlide devices. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of using a single ProGlide system for primary access site closure in comparison with the double ProGlide approach in an all-comers TAVI population.
METHODS
Between March 2016 and December 2018, a total of 1105 patients underwent transfemoral TAVI for severe aortic stenosis at our center. Application of two ProGlide systems was standard until April 2017 (n = 432), whereas thereafter a single ProGlide system was used (n = 663). A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline differences between the two groups, resulting in 327 matched cases. Primary outcomes of interest were main access site-related vascular complications.
RESULTS
The mean number of ProGlide devices used per patient was 1.03 (SD 0.2) in the single-ProGlide group versus 2.01 (SD 0.14) in the double-ProGlide group. An additional vascular closure device was required to obtain full hemostasis in 23.2% versus 9.5% of patients (p < 0.001) in the two groups, respectively. Technical success of ProGlide usage was similar (94.3% versus 92.1%, p = 0.163). In the matched cohorts, the rates of main access site-related major vascular complications were similar (4.0% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.217).
CONCLUSION
The single-ProGlide technique is feasible, with rates of technical success similar to those of the double-ProGlide technique. Use of this method did not lead to more frequent access site-related complications but was more cost effective than the double-ProGlide approach.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33529662
pii: S0167-5273(21)00125-X
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.01.043
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
183-188Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.