Efficacy and safety of the VASCADE® MVP venous vascular closure device in patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion with WATCHMAN.
VASCADE
WATCHMAN
left atrial appendage occlusion
percutaneous
vascular closure device
venotomy
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Sep 2024
15 Sep 2024
Historique:
revised:
30
07
2024
received:
07
01
2024
accepted:
19
08
2024
medline:
16
9
2024
pubmed:
16
9
2024
entrez:
16
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The VASCADE MVP venous vascular closure system is commonly used for percutaneous venotomy closure in catheter-based procedures utilizing sheath sizes 6-12 French. However, its application with larger sheaths such as ones required in left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has yet to be explored. This study compared the efficacy and safety of VASCADE MVP versus conventional Figure-of-8 sutures (Fo8) for femoral venotomy closure in patients undergoing Watchman LAAO. This single-center retrospective analysis included patients who underwent post-LAAO femoral venotomy closure with either VASCADE MVP or Fo8 sutures. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to hemostasis (TTH). Primary safety endpoints were 30-day access site-related readmissions and major complications. Minor access-site-related complications were also assessed. 107 patients underwent post-LAAO femoral venotomy closure with VASCADE MVP, of which 101 were successful (94.4%). 99 patients underwent conventional closure with Fo8 sutures and supplemental manual pressure. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. TTH was significantly shorter with VASCADE MVP (152.9 vs. 335.8 s, p = 0.001). Major safety outcomes were comparable. However, the conventional group experienced a higher incidence of ecchymosis (16.2% vs 4.7%, p = 0.007) and 30-day all-cause readmission (18.2% vs 8.4%, p = 0.038). VASCADE MVP significantly reduced TTH compared to Fo8 sutures after LAAO. While demonstrating a similar safety profile, VASCADE MVP may offer a more efficient approach to femoral vein closure in this patient population.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The VASCADE MVP venous vascular closure system is commonly used for percutaneous venotomy closure in catheter-based procedures utilizing sheath sizes 6-12 French. However, its application with larger sheaths such as ones required in left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has yet to be explored.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
This study compared the efficacy and safety of VASCADE MVP versus conventional Figure-of-8 sutures (Fo8) for femoral venotomy closure in patients undergoing Watchman LAAO.
METHODS
METHODS
This single-center retrospective analysis included patients who underwent post-LAAO femoral venotomy closure with either VASCADE MVP or Fo8 sutures. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to hemostasis (TTH). Primary safety endpoints were 30-day access site-related readmissions and major complications. Minor access-site-related complications were also assessed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
107 patients underwent post-LAAO femoral venotomy closure with VASCADE MVP, of which 101 were successful (94.4%). 99 patients underwent conventional closure with Fo8 sutures and supplemental manual pressure. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. TTH was significantly shorter with VASCADE MVP (152.9 vs. 335.8 s, p = 0.001). Major safety outcomes were comparable. However, the conventional group experienced a higher incidence of ecchymosis (16.2% vs 4.7%, p = 0.007) and 30-day all-cause readmission (18.2% vs 8.4%, p = 0.038).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
VASCADE MVP significantly reduced TTH compared to Fo8 sutures after LAAO. While demonstrating a similar safety profile, VASCADE MVP may offer a more efficient approach to femoral vein closure in this patient population.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Munir MB, Khan MZ, Darden D, et al. Contemporary procedural trends of Watchman percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion in the United States. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2021;32(1):83‐92. doi:10.1111/jce.14804
Hosseini SM, Rozen G, Saleh A, et al. Catheter ablation for cardiac arrhythmias: utilization and in‐hospital complications, 2000 to 2013. JACC. Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;3:1240‐1248.
Turi ZG. Stitching your way to venous hemostasis. Cathete Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96(1):187‐188. doi:10.1002/ccd.29077
Dauerman HL, Applegate RJ, Cohen DJ. Vascular closure devices. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(17):1617‐1626. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.07.028
Noori VJ, Eldrup‐Jørgensen J. A systematic review of vascular closure devices for femoral artery puncture sites. J Vasc Surg. 2018;683:887‐899. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2018.05.019
Schwartz BG, Burstein S, Economides C, et al. Review of vascular closure devices. J Invas Cardiol. 2011;19(7):175‐178.
Natale A, Mohanty S, Liu PY, et al. Venous vascular closure system versus manual compression following multiple access electrophysiology procedures: the AMBULATE trial. JACC. Clin Electrophysiol. 2020;6(1):111‐124. doi:10.1016/j.jacep.2019.08.013
Hermiller JB, Leimbach W, Gammon R, et al. A prospective, randomized, pivotal trial of a novel extravascular collagen‐based closure device compared to manual compression in diagnostic and interventional patients. J Invasive Cardiol. 2015;27(3):129‐136.
Barbetta I, van den Berg J. Access and hemostasis: femoral and popliteal approaches and closure devices—why, what, when, and how? Semin Intervent Radiol. 2014;31:353‐360.
Hmoud H, Sturla M, Delucia L, DeGregorio L, DeGregorio J. Closure of mid‐bore venotomies with VASCADE VCD after right and left heart catheterization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;93(4):626‐630. doi:10.1002/ccd.27886
Aytemir K, Canpolat U, Yorgun H, et al. Usefulness of ‘figure‐of‐eight’ suture to achieve haemostasis after removal of 15‐French calibre femoral venous sheath in patients undergoing cryoablation. Europace. 2016;18(10):1545‐1550. doi:10.1093/europace/euv375
Issa ZF, Amr BS. Venous hemostasis postcatheter ablation of atrial fibrillation while under therapeutic levels of oral and intravenous anticoagulation. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2015;44:97‐104.
Lakshmanadoss U, Wong WS, Kutinsky I, Khalid MR, Williamson B, Haines DE. Figure‐of‐eight suture for venous hemostasis in fully anticoagulated patients after atrial fibrillation catheter ablation. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2017;17(5):134‐139.
Bagai J, Brilakis ES. Preclosing large venous sheaths with perclose can facilitate advanced structural heart interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;81(4):591. doi:10.1002/ccd.24835
Shaw JA, Dewire E, Nugent A, Eisenhauer AC. Use of suture‐mediated vascular closure devices for the management of femoral vein access after transcatheter procedures. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2004;63(4):439‐443. doi:10.1002/ccd.20190
Mohanty S, Trivedi C, Beheiry S, et al. Venous access‐site closure with vascular closure device vs. manual compression in patients undergoing catheter ablation or left atrial appendage occlusion under uninterrupted anticoagulation: a multicentre experience on efficacy and complications. EP Europace. 2019;21(7):1048‐1054.