Vascular Complications in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Plug-Based vs Suture-Based Closure Devices.
Journal
The Canadian journal of cardiology
ISSN: 1916-7075
Titre abrégé: Can J Cardiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8510280
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2023
11 2023
Historique:
received:
06
02
2023
revised:
27
06
2023
accepted:
29
06
2023
medline:
13
11
2023
pubmed:
8
7
2023
entrez:
7
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There are conflicting data regarding the efficacy and safety of suture vs plug-based vascular closure devices (VCDs) for large-bore catheter management in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We compared the rates of vascular complications (VCs) associated with 2 commonly used VCDs in a large cohort of patients undergoing TAVR. We conducted a single-centre, all-comer, prospective registry study, enrolling patients undergoing TAVR for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) between the years 2009 and 2022. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients undergoing closure of the femoral access point using the MANTA VCD (M-VCD) (Teleflex, Wayne, PA) vs the ProGlide VCD (P-VCD) (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, IL). The main outcome measures were researcher adjudicated events of VARC-2 defined major and minor VCs. Overall, 2368 patients were enrolled in the registry; 1315 (51.0% male, 81.0 ± 7.0 years) patients were included in the current analysis. P-VCD was used in 813 patients, whereas M-VCD was used in 502 patients. In-hospital VCs were more frequent in the M-VCD vs the P-VCD group (17.3% vs 9.8%; P < 0.001). This outcome was mainly driven by elevated rates of minor VCs in the M-VCD group, whereas no significant difference was observed for major VCs (15.1% vs 8.4%; P < 0.001 and 2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.33, respectively). In patients undergoing TAVR for severe AS, M-VCD was associated with higher rates of VCs. This outcome was mainly driven by minor VCs. The rate of major VCs was low in both groups.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There are conflicting data regarding the efficacy and safety of suture vs plug-based vascular closure devices (VCDs) for large-bore catheter management in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We compared the rates of vascular complications (VCs) associated with 2 commonly used VCDs in a large cohort of patients undergoing TAVR.
METHODS
We conducted a single-centre, all-comer, prospective registry study, enrolling patients undergoing TAVR for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) between the years 2009 and 2022. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients undergoing closure of the femoral access point using the MANTA VCD (M-VCD) (Teleflex, Wayne, PA) vs the ProGlide VCD (P-VCD) (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, IL). The main outcome measures were researcher adjudicated events of VARC-2 defined major and minor VCs.
RESULTS
Overall, 2368 patients were enrolled in the registry; 1315 (51.0% male, 81.0 ± 7.0 years) patients were included in the current analysis. P-VCD was used in 813 patients, whereas M-VCD was used in 502 patients. In-hospital VCs were more frequent in the M-VCD vs the P-VCD group (17.3% vs 9.8%; P < 0.001). This outcome was mainly driven by elevated rates of minor VCs in the M-VCD group, whereas no significant difference was observed for major VCs (15.1% vs 8.4%; P < 0.001 and 2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.33, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
In patients undergoing TAVR for severe AS, M-VCD was associated with higher rates of VCs. This outcome was mainly driven by minor VCs. The rate of major VCs was low in both groups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37419247
pii: S0828-282X(23)01466-6
doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2023.06.425
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1528-1534Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.