Efficacy and time-to-hemostasis of antegrade femoral access closure using the ExoSeal vascular closure device: a retrospective single-center study.

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively evaluate the efficacy and time-to-hemostasis of antegrade femoral access closure using the ExoSeal vascular closure device (VCD). DESIGN: Retrospective, single-center analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between September 2010 and February 2013, 148 ExoSeal VCD closures (5-7F) of antegrade femoral accesses were performed in 119 patients (70 males, mean age 71.6 years, range 40-97 years). In all cases initial diagnostic angiography was performed via an 18G/3.8F retrograde femoral access, which was left in place during intervention (in-house standard) and was used to obtain control angiography after successful closure of the antegrade access to determine hemostasis. Technical device success was defined as ExoSeal closure without major VCD-related complications; procedural success as hemostasis within 5 minutes. Statistical analysis was performed using a logistic regression model and correlation analyses. RESULTS: 145/148 (98.0%) ExoSeal closures were technically successful (5F: n = 76; 6F: n = 65; 7F: n = 7). Angiographic control showed closure after 2 minutes in 130/145 cases. In a further 14 cases hemostasis was achieved after an additional 3 minutes MC, so that closure was successful within 5 minutes in 144/148 cases (97.3%). No major complication occurred. One minor complication was recorded in a 6F access case. Pre-interventional activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) was the only statistically significant predictor of necessary manual compression (MC) > 2 minutes (p = .01), but with an odds-ratio of only 1.038. The INR showed an odds-ratio of 2.455 for need for 5 minutes MC (NS). Significant correlations were found between the need for 5 minutes MC and medication with acetylsalicylic acid (p = .01), clopidogrel (p < .01), and abciximab (p < .001). CONCLUSION: ExoSeal vascular closure of antegrade femoral punctures is safe and effective with a low complication rate. Two minutes of MC are sufficient to achieve hemostasis in the majority of cases. However, in patients on antiplatelet therapy, especially after abciximab, the authors advocate prolonging MC to 5 minutes.

Safety and Efficacy of Arterial Closure Devices Following Antegrade Femoral Access: A Case-Control Study.

PURPOSE: Vascular closure device (VCD) use following antegrade femoral access may present unique challenges relative to retrograde access. We retrospectively compared safety and efficacy of these devices between antegrade and retrograde patient cohorts undergoing percutaneous intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a 5-year period, a consecutive series of 107 limbs in 84 patients underwent VCD arteriotomy closure following percutaneous revascularization using an antegrade approach (VCD-A). Device deployment success rates, time to ambulation, and complication rates were compared to a contemporaneous control group of 401 limbs in 305 patients who underwent closure following retrograde access (VCD-R) during revascularization or embolization procedures. RESULTS: Closure was attempted in VCD-A using 53 StarClose, 35 Perclose, and 19 Angio-Seal devices. Hemostasis (without supplemental manual compression) was achieved in 86/107 (80.4%) limbs. Closure was attempted in VCD-R using 215 StarClose, 119 Perclose, and 67 Angio-Seal devices with hemostasis in 357/401 (89.0%) limbs. Device deployment failure occurred in 7/107 (6.5%) of VCD-A and 20/401 (5.0%) of VCD-R (P = .52), independent of specific device type. Femoral pseudoaneurysm developed in 1/107 and 1/401 of VCD-A and VCD-R (P = .31), and minor hematoma developed in 3/107 and 8/401 of the VCD-A and VCD-R (P = .61). Mean time to ambulation was 204.1 minutes in VCD-A and 204.8 minutes in VCD-R (P = .97). CONCLUSION: Antegrade femoral closure was associated with high rates of technical success and low complications, similar to retrograde closure. Time to ambulation was the same in both groups despite higher heparin doses in the antegrade patients.

Technical Approach to Antegrade Femoral Access.

The number of endovascular procedures for treatment of peripheral arterial disease continues to increase as minimally invasive procedures have become the first-approach solution for lower extremity arterial lesions of any complexity, including Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus Document on Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC) II category C and D. Although the usual treatment strategy has been to access the contralateral common femoral artery (CFA), an ipsilateral, antegrade CFA approach has certain advantages. The greatest advantages are the decrease in the access-to-lesion distance, which in turn improves the mechanical advantage and responsiveness of the tools used to perform the intervention. In certain clinical situations such as prior endovascular aneurysm repair, aortobifemoral surgical bypass, iliac kissing stents, and aortoiliac occlusive disease, an antegrade approach may be mandatory. In this article, we describe our institutional thought process and techniques for performing a successful antegrade puncture of the CFA, as well as highlight some pitfalls and the associated complication rates of which to be aware.