RESUMO
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare a dual Proglide strategy versus a combination of one Proglide and dual Exoseal for large-bore access closure during percutaneous access endovascular aneurysm repair (pEVAR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 97 patients who underwent pEVAR at our center between January 2021 and February 2023. The patients were divided into two groups: dual Proglide (P + P) and one Proglide with dual Exoseal (P + E). The primary outcome measures were technical success and access-related vascular complications. Technical success was defined as achieving complete hemostasis without a bailout strategy. Postprocedural follow-up for access-related vascular complications was evaluated at 30 and 60 days using computed tomography angiography and ultrasonography. Severity was graded according to the Cardiovascular Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) Classification. RESULTS: Overall, a dual Proglide strategy was used in 46 patients (47.4%) with 65 groins (46.4%), and a combination of one Proglide and dual Exoseal was used in 51 patients (52.6%) with 75 groins (53.6%). The baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The total technical success rate was 96.4%, and no significant differences were observed (95.4% vs. 97.3%; p = 0.870). Minor bleeding treatable through compression occurred significantly more often in the P group (CIRSE 1, 10.8% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.042). Hemostasis time, procedural time, length of stay in the hospital, closure device failure, and incidence of unplanned intervention did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: A combined Proglide and Exoseal strategy is safe and effective for large-bore access closure during pEVAR and can be considered an alternative. However, it should be supported by larger prospective studies.