ProGlide-AngioSeal versus ProGlide-FemoSeal for vascular access hemostasis posttranscatheter aortic valve implantation.
TAVI
femoral access site
vascular access closure device
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:
08 Oct 2024
08 Oct 2024
Historique:
revised:
24
07
2024
received:
30
04
2024
accepted:
29
09
2024
medline:
8
10
2024
pubmed:
8
10
2024
entrez:
8
10
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The hybrid strategy combining plug-based and suture-based vascular closure devices (VCD) was introduced as a promising technique for vascular access hemostasis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with satisfactory outcomes. However, data comparing two plug-based VCDs each in the combination with a suture-based VCD, namely ProGlide/AngioSeal (P/AS) with ProGlide/FemoSeal (P/FS) VCDs, is still lacking. To compare the 30-day outcome of the hybrid strategy using P/AS versus P/FS for vascular access site closure after TAVI. A retrospective single-center observational study included 608 patients recruited from a prospective TAVI registry between 2016 and 2022. The composite endpoint was defined as any VCD-related major vascular complications and/or bleeding more than type 1 according to Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria. The current study reported a significantly higher rate of composite endpoint in P/AS group, which was driven by a higher rate of major bleeding (5.4% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.036). We also found a higher rate of VCD-related minor bleeding in P/AS group (16.3% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.013). Successful access site hemostasis was achieved in 71.7% of P/AS group versus 83.1% in P/FS group (p = 0.006). The presence of anterior wall calcification at the access site was significantly associated with the composite endpoint (adj odds ratio 2.49; 95% confidence interval (1.08-5.75), p = 0.032). The hybrid strategy for large bore vascular access closure using P/FS showed a potentially better 30-day outcomes compared with P/AS. The presence of anterior calcification at the access site carries a significant risk of VCD-related complications.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The hybrid strategy combining plug-based and suture-based vascular closure devices (VCD) was introduced as a promising technique for vascular access hemostasis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with satisfactory outcomes. However, data comparing two plug-based VCDs each in the combination with a suture-based VCD, namely ProGlide/AngioSeal (P/AS) with ProGlide/FemoSeal (P/FS) VCDs, is still lacking.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
To compare the 30-day outcome of the hybrid strategy using P/AS versus P/FS for vascular access site closure after TAVI.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective single-center observational study included 608 patients recruited from a prospective TAVI registry between 2016 and 2022. The composite endpoint was defined as any VCD-related major vascular complications and/or bleeding more than type 1 according to Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The current study reported a significantly higher rate of composite endpoint in P/AS group, which was driven by a higher rate of major bleeding (5.4% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.036). We also found a higher rate of VCD-related minor bleeding in P/AS group (16.3% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.013). Successful access site hemostasis was achieved in 71.7% of P/AS group versus 83.1% in P/FS group (p = 0.006). The presence of anterior wall calcification at the access site was significantly associated with the composite endpoint (adj odds ratio 2.49; 95% confidence interval (1.08-5.75), p = 0.032).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The hybrid strategy for large bore vascular access closure using P/FS showed a potentially better 30-day outcomes compared with P/AS. The presence of anterior calcification at the access site carries a significant risk of VCD-related complications.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Mehilli J, Jochheim D, Abdel‐Wahab M, et al. One‐year outcomes with two suture‐mediated closure devices to achieve access‐site haemostasis following transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. EuroIntervention. 2016;12:1298‐1304.
Leon MB, Smith CR. Transcatheter aortic‐valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:700‐701.
Vincent F, Spillemaeker H, Kyheng M, et al. Ultrasound guidance to reduce vascular and bleeding complications of percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a propensity score‐matched comparison. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9:e014916.
d'Entremont MA, Marquis‐Gravel G, Paradis JM, et al. Strategies to reduce transfemoral access complications in contemporary interventional cardiology. Can J Cardiol. 2023;39:1392‐1396.
Costa G, Valvo R, Picci A, et al. An upfront combined strategy for endovascular haemostasis in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. EuroIntervention. 2021;17:728‐735.
Doyle BJ, Rihal CS, Gastineau DA, Holmes Jr. DR. Bleeding, blood transfusion, and increased mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:2019‐2027.
Power D, Schäfer U, Guedeney P, et al. Impact of percutaneous closure device type on vascular and bleeding complications after TAVR: a post hoc analysis from the BRAVO‐3 randomized trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;93:1374‐1381.
Berti S, Bedogni F, Giordano A, et al. Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology G Efficacy and safety of ProGlide versus prostar XL vascular closure devices in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the RISPEVA registry. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9:e018042.
Abdel‐Wahab M, Hartung P, Dumpies O, et al. Comparison of a pure plug‐based versus a primary suture‐based vascular closure device strategy for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the CHOICE‐CLOSURE randomized clinical trial. Circulation. 2022;145:170‐183.
Wood DA, Krajcer Z, Sathananthan J, et al. Pivotal clinical study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the MANTA percutaneous vascular closure device. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:e007258.
Moriyama N, Lindström L, Laine M. Propensity‐matched comparison of vascular closure devices after transcatheter aortic valve replacement using MANTA versus ProGlide. EuroIntervention. 2019;14:e1558‐e1565.
Kiramijyan S, Magalhaes MA, Ben‐Dor I, et al. The adjunctive use of Angio‐Seal in femoral vascular closure following percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement. EuroIntervention. 2016;12:88‐93.
Ko TY, Kao HL, Liu YJ, et al. Intentional combination of ProGlide and Angio‐Seal for femoral access haemostasis in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Int J Cardiol. 2019;293:76‐79.
Gmeiner JMD, Linnemann M, Steffen J, et al. Dual ProGlide versus ProGlide and FemoSeal for vascular access haemostasis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. EuroIntervention. 2022;18:812‐819.
Blanke P, Weir‐McCall JR, Achenbach S, et al. Computed tomography imaging in the context of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR): an expert consensus document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12:1‐24.
Hayashida K, Lefèvre T, Chevalier B, et al. Transfemoral aortic valve implantation new criteria to predict vascular complications. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:851‐858.
Toggweiler S, Leipsic J, Binder RK, et al. Management of vascular access in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: part 1: basic anatomy, imaging, sheaths, wires, and access routes. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6:643‐653.
Treitl M, Eberhardt KM, Maxien D, Behrends B, Reiser MF. Arterial closure devices: what device for which clinical situation? Radiologe. 2013;53:230‐245.
Gabrielli R, Rosati MS, Millarelli M, et al. FemoSeal® device use for femoral artery closure by different techniques. Ann Vasc Surg. 2018;51:18‐24.
Sheth RA, Walker TG, Saad WE, et al. Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice C Quality improvement guidelines for vascular access and closure device use. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014;25:73‐84.
De Poli F, Leddet P, Couppie P, Daessle JM, Uhry S, Hanssen M. FemoSeal evaluation registry (FER). prospective study of femoral arterial closure with a mechanical system on 100 patients who underwent angioplasty procedures. Ann Cardiol Angeiol (Paris). 2014;63:339‐344.
Varc‐3 Writing C, Genereux P, Piazza N, et al. Valve academic research consortium 3: updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:1825‐1857.
Barbash IM, Barbanti M, Webb J, et al. Comparison of vascular closure devices for access site closure after transfemoral aortic valve implantation. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:3370‐3379.
Maniotis C, Andreou C, Karalis I, Koutouzi G, Agelaki M, Koutouzis M. A systematic review on the safety of Prostar XL versus ProGlide after TAVR and EVAR. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2017;18:145‐150.
Noble S, Mauler‐Wittwer S. Vascular closure for large‐bore access: plug‐based or sutured‐based vascular closure devices? Can J Cardiol. 2023;39:1535‐1538.
Kodama A, Yamamoto M, Shimura T, et al. Comparative data of single versus double proglide vascular preclose technique after percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation from the optimized catheter valvular intervention (OCEAN‐TAVI) Japanese multicenter registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;90:E55‐E62.
Thourani VH, Kodali S, Makkar RR, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate‐risk patients: a propensity score analysis. Lancet. 2016;387:2218‐2225.
Sarathy K, Patel KP, Jones DM, et al. Large bore vascular access closure device strategies. Struct Heart. 2021;5:186‐191.
Zornitzki L, Zahler D, Frydman S, et al. Vascular complications in transcatheter aortic valve replacement with plug‐based vs suture‐based closure devices. Can J Cardiol. 2023;39:1528‐1534.
Shoeib O, Burzotta F, Aurigemma C, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement induces femoral artery shrinkage: angiographic evidence and predictors for a new side effect. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;91:938‐944.
Al‐Ani A, Hoffmann P, von Lueder T, Opdahl A. Safety and efficacy of hybrid vascular closure technique using both a suture‐ and collagen‐mediated closure device after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;95:1171‐1175.
Xhepa E, Byrne RA, Schulz S, et al. investigators I‐C Rationale and design of a randomised clinical trial comparing vascular closure device and manual compression to achieve haemostasis after diagnostic coronary angiography: the instrumental sealing of ARterial puncture site—CLOSURE device versus manual compression (ISAR‐CLOSURE) trial. EuroIntervention. 2014;10:198‐203.
Kara K, Mahabadi AA, Berg MH, et al. Utilization of collagen‐based vascular closure devices in patients with severe peripheral artery disease. J Invasive Cardiol. 2013;25:19‐22.
Kara K, Kahlert P, Mahabadi AA, et al. Comparison of collagen‐based vascular closure devices in patients with vs. without severe peripheral artery disease. J Endovasc Ther. 2014;21:79‐84.
Kotronias RA, Bray JJH, Rajasundaram S, et al. Ultrasound‐ versus fluoroscopy‐guided strategy for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement access: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:e010742.