Femoral access management: comparison between two different vascular closure devices after percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVES: Several devices have been proposed as an alternative to manual compression (MC) for femoral access management (FAME) following catheterization. Although these devices allow earlier ambulation, they have not always been shown to reduce vascular complications. As a consequence, their cost efficacy is not obvious. METHODS: During MC a special catheter deployed temporarily within the artery to achieve haemostasis (Bio-DISC) (BD) was compared with an anchor-collagen based system Angio-Seal (AS) among 463 consecutive patients undergoing PCI. We examined vascular or systemic complications, nursing time spent to puncture site management and patient's satisfaction. RESULTS: Relative contra-indications to the use of vascular closure devices were encountered in 158 patients. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the patients assigned to each of the 3 treatment groups. The deployment success rate was 98% for AS and 90% for BD (p = 0.037). Vascular complications occurred in 10.8%, 4.0% and 5.8% (p: NS) of MC, AS and BD patients, respectively. The longer sheath dwell time contributed to most of the complications in MC and BD. Nursing time spent for access management was 48.9 min in MC; 28.1 min in BD and 9.9 min in AS (p < 0.0001 ). Satisfaction score above 70 was noted in 46%, 86% and 92% of patients managed by MC, BD and AS, respectively. CONCLUSION: AS use is associated with fewer complications, improved patient well being and saves 39 minutes of nursing time. The additional cost of AS is justified when used in selected patients undergoing PCI.

Diagnostic performance of quantitative coronary computed tomography angiography and quantitative coronary angiography to predict hemodynamic significance of intermediate-grade stenoses.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) during invasive coronary angiography has become an established tool for guiding treatment. However, only one-third of intermediate-grade coronary artery stenosis (ICAS) are hemodynamically significant and require coronary revascularization. Additionally, the severity of stenosis visually established by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) does not reliably correlate with the functional severity. Therefore, additional angiographic morphologic descriptors affecting hemodynamic significance are required. To evaluate quantitative stenosis analysis and plaque descriptors by CCTA in predicting the hemodynamic significance of ICAS and to compare it with quantitative catheter coronary angiography (QCA). QCA was performed in 65 patients (mean age 63 ± 9 years; 47 men) with 76 ICAS (40-70%) on CCTA. Plaque descriptors were determined including circumferential extent of calcification, plaque composition, minimal lumen diameter (MLD) and area, diameter stenosis percentage (Ds %), area stenosis percentage and stenosis length on CCTA. MLD and Ds % were also analyzed on QCA. FFR was measured on 52 ICAS lesions on CCTA and QCA. The diagnostic values of the best CCTA and QCA descriptors were calculated for ICAS with FFR ≤ 0.80. Of the 76 ICAS on CCTA, 52 (68%) had a Ds % between 40 and 70% on QCA. Significant intertechnique correlations were found between CCTA and QCA for MLD and Ds % (p < 0.001). In 17 (33%) of the 52 ICAS lesions on QCA, FFR values were ≤ 0.80. Calcification circumference extent (p = 0.50) and plaque composition assessment (p = 0.59) did not correlate with the hemodynamic significance. Best predictors for FFR ≤ 0.80 stenosis were ≤ 1.35 mm MLD (82% sensitivity, 66% specificity), and ≤ 2.3 mm(²) minimal lumen area (88% sensitivity, 60% specificity) on CCTA, and ≤ 1.1 mm MLD (59% sensitivity, 77% specificity) on QCA. Quantitative CCTA and QCA poorly predict hemodynamic significance of ICAS, though CCTA seems to have a better sensitivity than QCA. In this range of stenoses, additional functional evaluation is required.