ABSTRACT
To compare the safety and efficacy of manual compression versus use of the MANTA closure device for access management after Impella removal on the intensive care unit (ICU). The number of patients treated with percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVAD), namely Impella and ECMO, for complex cardiac procedures or shock, is growing. However, removal of pLVAD and large bore arteriotomy closure among such patients on the ICU remains challenging, since it is associated with a high risk for bleeding and vascular complications. Patients included in a prospective registry between 2017 and 2020 were analyzed. Bleeding and vascular access site complications were assessed and adjudicated according to VARC-2 criteria. We analyzed a cohort of 87 consecutive patients, who underwent access closure after Impella removal on ICU by using either the MANTA device or manual compression. The cohort´s mean age was 66.1 ± 10.7 years and 76 patients (87%) were recovering from CS. Mean support time was 40 h (interquartile range 24-69 h). MANTA was used in 31 patients (35.6%) and manual compression was applied in 56 patients (64.4%). Overall access related bleedings were significantly lower in the MANTA group (6.5% versus 39.3% (odds ratio (OR) 0.10, 95% CI 0.01-0.50; p = 0.001), and there was no significant difference in vascular complications between the two groups (p = 0.55). Our data suggests that the application of the MANTA device directly on the ICU is safe. In addition, it seems to reduce access related bleeding without increasing the risk of vascular complications.
Subject(s)
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement , Vascular Closure Devices , Aged , Femoral Artery/surgery , Hemorrhage/etiology , Hemorrhage/therapy , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Middle Aged , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome , Vascular Closure Devices/adverse effectsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Early studies evaluating the performance of bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) Absorb in in-stent restenosis (ISR) lesions indicated promising short-term to mid-term outcomes. AIMS: To evaluate long-term outcomes (up to 5 years) of patients with ISR treated with the Absorb BRS. METHODS: We did an observational analysis of long-term outcomes of patients treated for ISR using the Absorb BRS (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California, USA) between 2013 and 2016 at the Heart Centre Luzern. The main outcomes included a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE), defined as composite of cardiac death, target vessel (TV) myocardial infarction and TV revascularisation, target lesion revascularisation and scaffold thrombosis (ScT). RESULTS: Overall, 118 ISR lesions were treated using totally 131 BRS among 89 patients and 31 (35%) presented with an acute coronary syndrome. The median follow-up time was 66.3 (IQR 52.3-77) months. A DOCE had occurred in 17% at 1 year, 27% at 2 years and 40% at 5 years of all patients treated for ISR using Absorb. ScTs were observed in six (8.4%) of the cohort at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of ISR using the everolimus-eluting BRS Absorb resulted in high rates of DOCE at 5 years. Interestingly, while event rates were low in the first year, there was a massive increase of DOCE between 1 and 5 years after scaffold implantation. With respect to its complexity, involving also a more unpredictable vascular healing process, current and future BRS should be used very restrictively for the treatment of ISR.
