Access site complications are uncommon with vascular closure devices or manual compression after lower extremity revascularization.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Vascular closure devices (VCDs) and manual compression (MC) are used to achieve hemostasis after peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs). We sought to compare perioperative outcomes between MC and four VCDs after PVI in a multicenter setting. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for all lower extremity PVIs with common femoral artery access performed from 2010 to 2020. The VCDs included were MynxGrip (Cordis, Santa Clara, CA), StarClose SE (Abbott Vascular, Redwood City, CA), Angio-Seal (Terumo, Somerset, NJ), and Perclose ProGlide (Abbott Vascular). In a blinded fashion, these four VCDs (labeled A, B, C, and D) were compared to MC for baseline characteristics, procedural details, and outcomes (access site hematoma and stenosis/occlusion). Those with a sheath size >8F were excluded. Propensity score matching (11) was performed. Univariable and multivariable analyses were completed for unmatched and matched data. RESULTS: A total of 84,172 lower extremity PVIs were identified. Of these, 32,013 (38%) had used MC and 52,159 (62%) had used VCDs (A, 12,675; B, 6224; C, 19,872; D, 13,388). The average age was 68.7 years, and 60.4% of the patients were men. The most common indications for intervention were claudication (43.8%) and tissue loss (40.1%). Compared with MC, VCDs were used more often for patients with obesity, diabetes, and end-stage renal disease (P < .001 for all). VCDs were used less often for patients with hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, prior percutaneous coronary and extremity interventions, and major amputation (P < .001 for all). VCD use was more common than MC during femoropopliteal (73% vs 63.8%) and tibial (33.8% vs 22.3%) interventions but less common with iliac interventions (20.6% vs 34.7%; P < .001 for all). Protamine was used less often with VCDs (19.1% vs 25.6%; P < .001). Overall, 2003 hematomas had developed (2.4%), of which 278 (13.9%) had required thrombin or surgical intervention. Compared with MC, the use of any VCD had resulted in fewer hematomas (1.7% vs 3.6%; P < .001) and fewer hematomas requiring intervention (0.2% vs 0.5%; P < .001). When divided by hemostatic technique, the rate of the development of any hematoma was as follows MC, 3.6%; VCD A, 1.4%; VCD B, 1.2%; VCD C, 2.3%; and VCD D, 1.1% (P < .001). The rate of hematomas requiring intervention was as follows MC, 0.5%; VCD A, 0.2%; VCD B, 0.2%; VCD C, 0.3%; and VCD D, 0.1% (P < .001). Access site stenosis/occlusion was similar between the MC and any VCD groups (0.2% vs 0.2%; P = .12). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that any VCD use and the use of the individual VCDs compared with MC were independently associated with the development of fewer hematomas. The incidence of access site stenosis/occlusion was similar between the use of any VCD and MC. The matched analysis revealed similar findings. CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall rates of hematomas requiring intervention were low regardless of hemostatic technique, VCD use, irrespective of type, compared favorably with MC, with significantly fewer access site complications after PVI.