Ultrasound guidance for transfemoral access in coronary procedures: an individual participant-level data metaanalysis from the femoral ultrasound trialist collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials of ultrasound (US)-guided transfemoral access (TFA) for coronary procedures have shown mixed results. AIMS: We aimed to compare US-guided versus non-US-guided TFA from randomised data in an individual participant-level data (IPD) meta-analysis. METHODS: We completed a systematic review and an IPD meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials comparing US-guided versus non-US-guided TFA for coronary procedures. We performed a one-stage mixed-model meta-analysis using the intention-to-treat population from included trials. The primary outcome was a composite of major vascular complications or major bleeding within 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 2,441 participants (1,208 US-guided, 1,233 non-US-guided) from 4 randomised clinical trials were included. The mean age was 65.5 years, 27.0% were female, and 34.5% underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention. The incidence of major vascular complications or major bleeding (34/1,208 [2.8%] vs 55/1,233 [4.5%]; odds ratio [OR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39-0.94; p=0.026) was lower in the US-guided TFA group. In the prespecified subgroup of participants who received a vascular closure device, those randomised to US-guided TFA experienced a reduction in the primary outcome (2.1% vs 5.6%; OR 0.36, 95% CI: 0.19-0.69), while no benefit for US guidance was observed in the subgroup without vascular closure devices (4.1% vs 3.3%; OR 1.21, 95% CI: 0.65-2.26; interaction p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: In participants undergoing coronary procedures by TFA, US guidance decreased the composite outcome of major vascular complications or bleeding and may be especially helpful when using vascular closure devices.

A systematic algorithm for large-bore arterial access closure after TAVI: the TAVI-MultiCLOSE study.

BACKGROUND: Despite transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) having become a routine procedure, access site bleeding and vascular complications are still a concern which contribute to procedure-related morbidity and mortality. AIMS: The TAVI-MultiCLOSE study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of a new vascular closure algorithm for percutaneous large-bore arterial access closure following transfemoral (TF)-TAVI. METHODS: All consecutive TF-TAVI cases in which the MultiCLOSE vascular closure algorithm was used were prospectively included in a multicentre, observational study. This stepwise algorithm entails the reinsertion of a 6-8 Fr sheath (primary access) following the initial preclosure with one or two suture-based vascular closure devices (VCDs). This provides the operator with the opportunity to perform a quick and easy angiographic control and tailor the final vascular closure with either an additional suture- or plug-based VCD, or neither of these. RESULTS: Among 630 patients who underwent TF-TAVI utilising the MultiCLOSE algorithm, complete arterial haemostasis was achieved in 616 patients (98%). VCD failure occurred in 14 patients (2%), treated with either balloon inflation (N=1), covered stent (N=12) or surgical repair (N=1). Overall, this vascular closure approach resulted in a minor and major vascular complication rate of 2.2% and 0.6%, respectively. At 30 days, only one new minor vascular complication (0.2%) was noted. In-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality rates were 0.2% and 1.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the MultiCLOSE vascular closure algorithm was demonstrated to contribute to an easy, safe, efficacious and durable vascular closure after TF-TAVI, resulting in a major vascular complication rate of less than 1%.

"Safe Femoral" Artery Approach in Endovascular Procedures: A Systematic Review of Its Safety and Feasibility.

Femoral access site-related bleeding represent a prognostically impactful issue in interventional cardiology. The impact of a combined use of ultrasound guidance for femoral access and vascular closure device deployment for arteriotomy closure in femoral artery procedures on bleeding complications is still largely unknown. A systematic review was conducted on Pubmed (Medline), Cochrane library and Biomed Central databases between March and April 2023. A total of 9 studies have been selected, of namely 4 registries, 4 prospective studies and one randomized clinical trial. A systematic use of US guidance to access femoral artery resulted feasible and not time consuming, reduced venipuncture and increased first attempt success. Combination of US guidance and deployment of VCD's had the capacity to further decrease vascular and bleeding combination, especially in those patients at a higher risk of post-procedural bleeding. Ultrasound can be easily used during closure device deployment to reduce device failure and major vascular complications.

Comparison of manual compression, Z-stitch, and suture-mediated vascular closure device techniques in dogs undergoing percutaneous transvenous intervention.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Manual compression has been standard of care for maintaining hemostasis after percutaneous endovascular intervention, but can be time-consuming and associated with vascular complications. Alternative closure methods include the figure-of-eight suture (Z-stitch) and vascular closure device (VCD) techniques. We hypothesized that compared to manual compression, Z-stitch and VCD would significantly reduce time-to-hemostasis after transvenous access, and the proportion of dogs with vascular patency would not differ significantly among treatments. ANIMALS: Forty-six client-owned dogs undergoing percutaneous transvenous interventional procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dogs with vessel diameter <5 mm were randomized to undergo manual compression or Z-stitch, while those with vessel diameter ≥5 mm were randomized to undergo manual compression, Z-stitch, or VCD. Time-to-hemostasis, bleeding scores, presence of vascular patency one day and two to three months post-procedure, and complications were recorded. Data are presented as median (95% confidence interval). RESULTS: In all 46 dogs, the right external jugular vein was used. Time-to-hemostasis was significantly shorter in the Z-stitch (2.1 [1.8-2.9] minutes) compared to VCD (8.6 [6.1-11.8] minutes; P<0.001) and manual compression (10.0 [10.0-20.0] minutes; P<0.001) groups. Time-to-hemostasis was significantly shorter in the VCD vs. manual compression (P=0.027) group. Bleeding scores were significantly greater at 5 and 10 min (P<0.001 and 0.013, respectively) in manual compression, compared to Z-stitch group. There was no difference in the proportion of dogs with vascular patency between groups (P=0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Z-stitch and VCD are effective venous hemostasis methods after percutaneous transvenous intervention, with Z-stitch providing the most rapid time-to-hemostasis. Both Z-stitch and VCD techniques have low complication rates and effectively maintain vascular patency.

Vascular complications of ProGlide versus Prostar in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the vascular complications of ProGlide and Prostar in percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched in July 2022 for studies that compared the vascular complications of ProGlide and Prostar for percutaneous closure in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The primary outcome was major vascular complications and the secondary outcomes were minor vascular complications, types of access-site vascular complications, device failure, and additional intervention. Estimates of relative effects were pooled to generate ORs and their 95 per cent c.i. using a random-effects model. The risk of bias in non-randomized comparative studies was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions ('ROBINS-I') tool. RESULTS: Nine studies were identified and a total of 7529 patients were included. Among them, 4144 patients received ProGlide and 3385 received Prostar. The pooled data showed that the risk of major vascular complications was significantly lower with ProGlide versus Prostar (OR 0.50, 95 per cent c.i. 0.32 to 0.78). Regarding the types of vascular complications, vascular trauma was the most common complication and the risk was similar between groups (OR 1.02, 95 per cent c.i. 0.55 to 1.91). ProGlide had a lower risk of bleeding complications (OR 0.46, 95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.94), but a higher risk of ischaemia complications (OR 1.90, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 3.27). The risk of device failure was lower in the ProGlide group (OR 0.45, 95 per cent c.i. 0.21 to 0.95). Both groups had a similar risk of having additional interventions for vascular complications (OR 1.02, 95 per cent c.i. 0.75 to 1.39). The use of ProGlide was associated with a lower risk of additional surgical treatments (OR 0.52, 95 per cent c.i. 0.34 to 0.80), but a higher risk of endovascular treatments (OR 2.69, 95 per cent c.i. 1.29 to 5.63). CONCLUSION: In percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedures, ProGlide has superior safety and efficacy when compared with Prostar; it is associated with fewer major vascular complications and device failures. The vascular complications of ProGlide are more likely to be dealt with using endovascular treatments than surgical treatments.

Vascular Complications in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Plug-Based vs Suture-Based Closure Devices.

BACKGROUND: There are conflicting data regarding the efficacy and safety of suture vs plug-based vascular closure devices (VCDs) for large-bore catheter management in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We compared the rates of vascular complications (VCs) associated with 2 commonly used VCDs in a large cohort of patients undergoing TAVR. METHODS: We conducted a single-centre, all-comer, prospective registry study, enrolling patients undergoing TAVR for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) between the years 2009 and 2022. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients undergoing closure of the femoral access point using the MANTA VCD (M-VCD) (Teleflex, Wayne, PA) vs the ProGlide VCD (P-VCD) (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, IL). The main outcome measures were researcher adjudicated events of VARC-2 defined major and minor VCs. RESULTS: Overall, 2368 patients were enrolled in the registry; 1315 (51.0% male, 81.0 ± 7.0 years) patients were included in the current analysis. P-VCD was used in 813 patients, whereas M-VCD was used in 502 patients. In-hospital VCs were more frequent in the M-VCD vs the P-VCD group (17.3% vs 9.8%; P < 0.001). This outcome was mainly driven by elevated rates of minor VCs in the M-VCD group, whereas no significant difference was observed for major VCs (15.1% vs 8.4%; P < 0.001 and 2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.33, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TAVR for severe AS, M-VCD was associated with higher rates of VCs. This outcome was mainly driven by minor VCs. The rate of major VCs was low in both groups.

Percutaneous decannulation of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation using the Manta vascular closure device: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the techniques and outcomes associated with percutaneous decannulation of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) using the Manta vascular closure device. BACKGROUND: Peripheral VA-ECMO can be used to treat critically ill patients with conditions such as refractory cardiogenic shock. After percutaneous implantation of VA-ECMO, VA-ECMO can also be decannulated completely percutaneously by using a vascular closure device. The Manta vascular closure device is a dedicated device used in the closure of large-bore arteriotomies by sandwiching the arteriotomy with an intra-arterial toggle and an extraluminal collagen plug. METHODS: We performed a thorough literature search using various electronic databases. We included studies that reported outcomes after peripheral femorofemoral VA-ECMO decannulation with the Manta vascular closure device. We performed a meta-analysis of proportions on outcome measures, including technical success, bleeding complications, vascular complications, wound complications, major amputation, and procedural-related deaths. RESULTS: We included seven studies with a total of 116 patients. The overall technical success of percutaneous decannulation of VA-ECMO with the Manta vascular closure device was 93.7%. The overall incidence of bleeding, vascular and wound complications was 1.7%, 13.8%, and 3.4%, respectively. No patient required lower limb amputation or died due to VA-ECMO decannulation. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous decannulation with the Manta vascular closure device is an effective and safe procedure that should be considered in suitable patients on VA-ECMO.

Ultrasound-guided femoral access in patients with vascular closure devices: a prespecified analysis of the randomised UNIVERSAL trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether ultrasound (US)-guided femoral access compared to femoral access without US guidance decreases access site complications in patients receiving a vascular closure device (VCD) is unclear. AIMS: We aimed to compare the safety of VCD in patients undergoing US-guided versus non-US-guided femoral arterial access for coronary procedures. METHODS: We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis of the UNIVERSAL trial, a multicentre randomised controlled trial of 1:1 US-guided femoral access versus non-US-guided femoral access, stratified for planned VCD use, for coronary procedures on a background of fluoroscopic landmarking. The primary endpoint was a composite of major Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3 or 5 bleeding and vascular complications at 30 days. RESULTS: Of 621 patients, 328 (52.8%) received a VCD (86% ANGIO-SEAL, 14% ProGlide). In patients who received a VCD, those randomised to US-guided femoral access compared to non-US-guided femoral access experienced a reduction in major bleeding or vascular complications (20/170 [11.8%] vs 37/158 [23.4%], odds ratio [OR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.82). In patients who did not receive a VCD, there was no difference between the US- and non-US-guided femoral access groups, respectively (20/141 [14.2%] vs 13/152 [8.6%], OR 1.76, 95% CI: 0.80-4.03; interaction p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving a VCD after coronary procedures, US-guided femoral access was associated with fewer bleeding and vascular complications compared to femoral access without US guidance. US guidance for femoral access may be particularly beneficial when VCD are used.

Costs and Budget Impact of Collagen-Based Vascular Closure Device Versus Manual Compression Following Peripheral Endovascular Procedures.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the annual costs and budget impact of using a vascular closure device to achieve hemostasis following femoral access endovascular procedures in England, compared with manual compression. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed in Microsoft® Excel, based on the estimated number of peripheral endovascular procedures eligible for day-case management performed annually by the National Health Service in England. The clinical effectiveness of vascular closure devices was captured based on the requirement for inpatient stays and the incidence of complications. Data for endovascular procedures, time to hemostasis, length of hospital stay, and complications were collected from public sources and the published literature. There were no patients involved in this study. Model outcomes are reported as estimated number of bed days and annual costs to the National Health Service for all peripheral endovascular procedures in England, and the average cost per procedure. The robustness of the model was tested in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The model estimated savings for the National Health Service of up to £4.5 million annually if vascular closure devices were used in every procedure instead of manual compression. The model estimated an average cost saving of £176 per procedure for vascular closure devices over manual compression, primarily due to fewer inpatient stays. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the proportion of day-case procedures for vascular closure devices and manual compression was a key driver of costs and savings. CONCLUSIONS: The use of vascular closure devices for achieving hemostasis after peripheral endovascular procedures may be associated with lower resource use and cost burden, compared with manual compression, based on shorter time to hemostasis and ambulation and an increased likelihood of a day-case procedure.

Safety and Effectiveness of a Sequential Suture and Plug Vascular Closure Devices Technique for Large-Bore Access Closure after Percutaneous Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of sequential sutures and plugged vascular closure devices (VCDs) for large-bore access closure during percutaneous access endovascular aneurysm repair (PEVAR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on 16 patients who underwent PEVAR at the authors' center from January 2022 to May 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The median age was 72 years (interquartile range [IQR], 59-75 years), with a male-to-female ratio of 3:1. All patients received sequential suture and plug VCDs using dual Exoseal after 1 Proglide for access closure. Success was defined as the ability to achieve complete hemostasis and was confirmed by ultrasonography. The patients were followed up for access-related adverse events at 30 and 90 days after the procedure, and the severity was graded according to the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) classification. RESULTS: Overall, 24 access sites were included. The median sheath size was 21 F (IQR, 18-23 F). The median hemostasis time was 11.0 minutes (IQR, 9.3-13.0 minutes), the median procedural time was 133.5 minutes (IQR, 102.5-151.0 minutes), and the median length of stay was 5 days (IQR, 4.0-6.8 days). The success rate was 95.8%, and a pseudoaneurysm (SIR Grade 2) developed in 1 patient, which was treated by a percutaneous injection of thrombin. No other access-related adverse events occurred, and the total adverse event rate was 4.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Placement of sequential suture and plug VCDs using 1 Proglide and dual Exoseal is a safe and effective method and may be an option for access closure during PEVAR.

Comparison of plug-based versus suture-based vascular closure for large-bore arterial access: a collaborative meta-analysis of observational and randomized studies.

BACKGROUND: Large-bore arteriotomies can be percutaneously closed with suture-based or plug-based vascular closure device (VCD) strategies. The efficacy of both techniques remains controversial. AIMS: We conducted a meta-analysis of comparative studies between both VCD strategies, focusing on the most commonly applied VCDs (MANTA and ProGlide). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google scholar for observational studies (OS) and randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing vascular closure with the MANTA-based and the ProGlide-based technique. The principal endpoint of this analysis was access-site related vascular complications. Both study types were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Access-site related vascular complications were less frequent after vascular closure with the MANTA technique in the analysis of OS (RR 0.61 [95%CI 0.43-0.89], p = 0.01, I2 = 0%), but more frequent in the analysis of RCT data (RR 1.70 [95%CI 1.16-2.51], p = 0.01, I2 = 0%). Both data sets provided no significant difference between the VCD techniques in terms of overall bleeding events (OS: RR 0.57 [95%CI 0.32-1.02], p = 0.06, I2 = 70%; and RCT: RR 1.37 [95%CI 0.82-2.28], p = 0.23, I2 = 30%). RCT data showed that endovascular stenting or vascular surgery due to VCD failure occurred more often after MANTA application (RR 3.53 [95%CI 1.07-11.33], p = 0.04, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: While OS point to favorable outcomes for large-bore vascular closure with the MANTA-based technique, RCT data show that this strategy is associated with more access-site related vascular complications as well as endovascular stenting or vascular surgery due to device failure compared with the ProGlide-based technique.

Percutaneous Suture - Closure Device Used for Iatrogenic Carotid Artery Injury Management: Case Report and Review of Literature.

Accidental carotid artery injury is an uncommon but serious central venous catheter insertion complication. Hemostasis might not be readily achieved by manual compression; therefore, surgery or endovascular treatment remains the mainstay for accidental carotid artery injury. However, not all patients are suitable candidates for surgery.Vascular closure devices are widely used in femoral arteries to achieve hemostasis and early ambulation. The use of vascular closure devices is occasionally reported in other vascular beds. Here we present a case of an iatrogenic left common carotid artery injury treated by vascular closure device, which is of help in the future management of this complication.

Femoral Vascular Closure Devices and Bleeding, Hemostasis, and Ambulation Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Background The effectiveness of vascular closure devices (VCDs) to reduce bleeding after transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention remains unsettled. Methods and Results Participants in the REGULATE-PCI (Effect of the REG1 anticoagulation system versus bivalirudin on outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention) trial who underwent transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention with VCD implantation were compared with those who underwent manual compression. The primary effectiveness end point was type 2, 3, or 5 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium access site bleeding at day 3. Univariate and multivariate analyses were adjusted by the inverse probability weighting method using propensity score. Time to hemostasis and time to ambulation were compared between groups. Of the 1580 patients who underwent transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention, 1004 (63.5%) underwent VCD implantation and 576 (36.5%) had manual compression. The primary effectiveness end point occurred in 64 (6.4%) participants in the VCD group and in 38 (6.6%) participants in the manual compression group (inverse probability weighting-adjusted odds ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.77-1.36]; P=0.89). There were statistically significant 2-way interactions between VCD use and female sex, chronic kidney disease, and use of high-potency P2Y12 inhibition (ticagrelor or prasugrel) (P<0.05 for all) with less bleeding with VCD use in these high-risk subgroups. Median time to hemostasis and time to ambulation were shorter in the VCD versus the manual compression group (P<0.01 for both). Conclusions Following transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention, VCD use is associated with a shorter time to hemostasis and time to ambulation but not less bleeding. Further study of patients with high-bleeding risk is required, including women, patients with chronic kidney disease, and those using high-potency P2Y12 inhibitors. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01848106; Unique identifier: NCT01848106.

Hemostasis control after femoral percutaneous approach: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hemostasis control after percutaneous endovascular procedures through the femoral approach remains challenging for catheterization laboratory nurses, given method variability. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the available evidence on vascular devices efficacy dedicated to hemostasis control compared to the extrinsic compression after percutaneous procedures in the femoral vein or artery. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials was conducted. We compared different hemostasis methods in adult patients who underwent diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedures through femoral access. The databases searched were PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane CENTRAL, and updated on 03/2022. The outcomes included hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, bleeding, minor and major vascular complication, time to hemostasis, device failure, and manual compression repetition. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 1.0. Pooled effect sizes on continuous, categorical and proportion variables were estimated with the random effects model. The continuous variables were summarized as the difference between means weighted by the inverse of variance (WMD), and the categorical ones by the summary of relative risks (RR), estimated by the DerSimonian and Laird method. The Freeman-Tukey method was used to estimate the summary effect of proportions. RESULTS: Fifty articles were included in the systematic review. When compared to extrinsic compression, vascular closure devices resulted in a relative risk reduction (RRR) for hematoma: RR 0.82 [95%CI 0.72 to 0.94] and in shorter time to hemostasis WMD -15.06 min [95%CI -17.56 to -12.56]; no association was observed between interventions with vascular closure devices and extrinsic compression for pseudoaneurysm, bleeding, minor and major vascular complications. Compared to extrinsic compression, sealant or gel type devices were compatible with a RRR for hematoma: RR 0.73 [95%CI 0.59 to 0.90]; and metal clip or staple type devices for pseudoaneurysm: RR 0.48 [95%CI 0.25 to 0.90]; and major vascular complication: RR 0.33 [95%CI 0.17 to 0.64]. For each 100 observations, the device failure rate for metal clip or staple was 3.28% [95%CI 1.69 to 6.27]; for suture 6.84% [95%CI 4.93 to 9.41]; for collagen 3.15% [95%CI 2.24 to 4.41]; and for sealant or gel 7.22% [95% CI 5.49 to 9.45]. CONCLUSIONS: Vascular closure devices performed better in hemostasis control. The certainty of the evidence was rated as very low to moderate. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019140794.

The Use of Vascular Closure Devices for Brachial Artery Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To estimate the rates of technical success and adverse events of vascular closure devices (VCDs) in the brachial artery and compare the rates of adverse events with manual compression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched for observational studies examining VCDs in the brachial artery. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects for the following outcomes: (a) technical success, (b) hematoma at the access site, (c) pseudoaneurysm, (d) local neurological adverse events, and (e) total number of adverse events. A pairwise meta-analysis compared VCD with manual compression for the outcomes of hematoma and the total number of adverse events. RESULTS: Of 1,761 eligible records, 16 studies including 510 access sites were included. Primary procedures performed were peripheral arterial disease interventions, percutaneous coronary intervention, and endovascular thrombectomy for ischemic stroke. The technical success rate was 93% (95% CI, 87%-96%; I2 = 47%). Data on the following adverse events were obtained via meta-analysis: (a) hematoma, 9% (5%-15%; I2 = 54%); (b) stenosis or occlusion at access site, 3% (1%-14%; I2 = 51%); (c) infection, 0% (0%-5%; I2 = 0%); (d) pseudoaneurysm, 4% (1%-13%; I2 = 61%); (e) local neurological adverse events, 5% (2%-13%; I2 = 54%); and (f) total number of adverse events, 15% (10%-22%; I2 = 51%). Angio-Seal success rate was 96% (93%-98%; I2 = 0%), whereas the ExoSeal success rate was 93% (69%-99%; I2 = 61%). When comparing VCD and manual compression, there was no difference in hematoma formation (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.35-1.63; I2 = 0%; P = .47) or the total number of adverse events (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.35-1.58; I2 = 76%; P = .45). CONCLUSIONS: Despite being off-label, studies suggest that VCDs in the brachial artery have a high technical success rate. There was no significant difference in adverse events between VCDs and manual compression in the brachial artery.

Alternative Application Technique for the MANTA Vascular Closure Device for Percutaneous Large-Bore Arterial Access Closure: The Fluoroscopic DOT Technique.

BACKGROUND: Vascular complications are a cause of increased morbidity and mortality when performing percutaneous procedures requiring large-bore arterial access. MANTA vascular closure device (VCD) is currently the only large-bore VCD using an intraluminal foot plate and an extraluminal collagen plug. The traditional depth locator approach might be compromised in; emergent cases without the required measurements, cases of hematoma formation, or other patient, procedure, or operator-specific variables. Furthermore, this technique can be used for postclosure in cases without the required measurement of depth. We describe vascular outcomes using fluoroscopy (fluoroscopic DOT technique) rather than traditional depth locator approach for vascular closure with the MANTA VCD. METHODS: Fifty patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) were retrospectively analyzed using fluoroscopic DOT technique with 18F MANTA VCD between May and August 2021. All patients >18 years of age who qualified for transfemoral TAVI were included. Access was obtained with ultrasound guidance with vessel diameter of at least > 6 mm and free from anterior vessel wall calcification. Patient related factors and primary outcomes of access site bleeding and acute flow-limited limb ischemia requiring intervention were prospectively analyzed. Furthermore, 1 patient who failed hemostasis with suture-mediated VCD had successful hemostasis with fluoroscopic DOT technique as dry postclosure after balloon aortic valvuloplasty. RESULTS: In total, 50 patients were analyzed with a mean age of 81 years and majority were male (56%). Majority had comorbidities of hypertension (88%) and hyperlipidemia (94%), 24% had peripheral arterial disease, 38% coronary artery disease, and 58% were former smokers. Importantly, 40% were obese with an average body mass index (BMI) of 29 kg/m2. There were no bleeding or ischemic limb complications post MANTA VCD deployment using the fluoroscopic DOT technique. Furthermore, none of the patients required peripheral intervention from index procedure to 1 month post verified during their 1-month post TAVR follow-up. CONCLUSION: Fluoroscopic DOT technique using the MANTA VCD is highly reproducible and allows hemostasis in a predictable manner for procedures requiring large-bore arterial access in the absence of MANTA depth measurement.

Selection of Vascular Closure Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Various vascular closure devices (VCDs) are commonly used for percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, superiority and safety profile among them remain unclear. We compared periprocedural complications among various VCDs in patients undergoing TAVR. PubMed and EMBASE were searched through January 2022 to identify clinical studies comparing any 2 VCDs of Prostar, Proglide and MANTA in patients who underwent TAVR. Studies using surgical cut-down or alternative access other than transfemoral approach were excluded. We analyzed the odds ratios (ORs) of vascular complications (VC), bleeding, acute kidney injury and all-cause mortality using a network meta-analysis. All outcomes were defined by Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 criteria. Two randomized controlled trials and 15 observational studies were identified, yielding a total of 11,344 patients including Prostar (n = 4499), Proglide (n = 5705), or MANTA group (n = 1140). The rates of major VC and life-threatening and major bleeding were significantly lower in Proglide compared to Prostar (OR [95 % CI] = 0.54 [0.32-0.89], 0.68 [0.52-0.90], and 0.49 [0.26-0.95], respectively). There was no significant difference in major VC and bleeding between Proglide and MANTA groups. Proglide was associated with a lower rate of acute kidney injury (0.56 [0.34-0.92]) and red blood cell transfusion (0.39 [0.16-0.98]) compared to Prostar. There was no significant difference in additional interventions and 30-day overall mortality among three groups. In this network meta-analysis of VCD in patients undergoing TAVR, MANTA and Proglide had comparable outcomes while Proglide appears superior to Prostar in terms of major VC and bleeding.

Evaluation of the MANTA Vascular Closure Device in Transfemoral TAVI.

BACKGROUND: The MANTA vascular closure device (VCD) is a novel collagen plug-based VCD for large bore arteriotomies. The current literature regarding complication rates of this device is quite variable and mostly limited to relatively small case series. METHODS: This study is retrospective analysis of the MANTA VCD-related main access site complications according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) criteria during the hospital stay. Particular attention was paid to the detailed analysis of multislice computed tomography with regard to the anatomy of the access vessel and the puncture site itself. RESULTS: A total of 524 patients underwent transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF TAVI) including the use of the MANTA device (18F) for percutaneous vascular closure. A group of 22 patients was excluded from the study due to incomplete imaging data. During the study period, we observed 28 major (5.6%) and five minor (1.0%) MANTA device-related vascular complications. There was no patient death related to these adverse events. Female gender, vessel angulation at the puncture site, and at least moderate calcification of the dorsal vessel segment were identified as independent predictors for major complications. CONCLUSIONS: The MANTA device is a feasible option for vascular closure of large bore arteriotomies in patients undergoing TF TAVI or other percutaneous transfemoral interventions. Furthermore, we have identified novel predictors for device failure/complications that should be taken into account for selection of the appropriate closure device. To our knowledge, this report is one of the largest case series analyzing the use of the MANTA VCD.

Angio-Seal Used as a Bailout for Incomplete Hemostasis After Dual Perclose ProGlide Deployment in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND: The failure rate of vascular closure devices remains a significant cause of major vascular complications in contemporary transcatheter aortic valve implantation practice. METHODS: This research aimed to evaluate use of the Angio-Seal device in a bailout context in the setting of incomplete hemostasis following use of dual Perclose ProGlide devices in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. A total of 185 patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation with either dual Per-close ProGlide (n = 139) or a combination of dual Perclose ProGlide and Angio-Seal (n = 46) were retrospectively analyzed. The baseline, procedural characteristics, and all outcomes (defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria) were compared. RESULTS: No significant differences were seen between the dual Perclose ProGlide vs dual Perclose ProGlide+Angio-Seal groups with regard to the in-hospital Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 primary end points of major vascular complications (n = 13 [9.4%] vs n = 2 [4.3%]; P = .36), minor vascular complications (n = 13 [9.4%] vs n = 8 [14.7%]; P = .14), major bleeding (n = 16 [11.5%] vs n = 2 [4.3%]; P = .25), and minor bleeding (n = 9 [6.5%] vs n = 5 [10.9%]; P = .34), with higher rates of hematoma in the dual Perclose ProGlide+Angio-Seal group (n = 4 [2.9%] vs n = 5 [10.9%]; P = .044). CONCLUSION: Finding from the current study suggest that adjunctive Angio-Seal deployment may be feasible and safe, especially in patients with incomplete hemostasis following dual Perclose ProGlide use, and can be an optimal "bailout" procedure.

Comparison of MANTA vs ProGlide Vascular Closure Device and 30-Day Outcomes in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND: Vascular complications (VCs) after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have an increased mortality risk, and vascular closure device (VCD) use is mandatory. The percutaneous MANTA VCD (Teleflex) is a novel collagen-based technology for closure of large-bore arteriotomies. We compared the MANTA VCD with the suture-based ProGlide VCD (Abbott Vascular). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on all consecutive patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI in our center from January 1, 2015, to February 28, 2021, and 30-day outcomes were recorded. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were cardiac death, disabling stroke, and/or major VCs. Access site-related VCs were VCs related to the access site vessel from which the transcatheter valve was introduced and advanced. RESULTS: The MANTA VCD was used in 99 patients and the ProGlide in 224. There was 4.0% MACE in the MANTA group and 4.9% in the ProGlide group (P = .999). Overall VCs were 10.1% vs 7.6%, major VCs were 3.0% vs 2.2%, and minor VCs 7.1% vs 5.4%(P = .753). Access site-related VCs were 5.1% vs 5.8% in the (P = .999), and periprocedural vascular surgical intervention was needed in 6.1% of the MANTA group vs 2.2% of the ProGlide group (P = .099). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in MACE, mortality, cardiovascular mortality, VCs, access site-related VCs, periprocedural vascular surgical interventions, bleeding, or transfusion rate between the 2 groups. The MANTA VCD group had more periprocedural vascular surgical interventions which did not reach statistical significance.