Comparison of a Pure Plug-Based Versus a Primary Suture-Based Vascular Closure Device Strategy for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The CHOICE-CLOSURE Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is an established treatment option for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and is most commonly performed through the transfemoral access route. Percutaneous access site closure can be achieved using dedicated plug-based or suture-based vascular closure device (VCD) strategies, but randomized comparative studies are scarce. METHODS: The CHOICE-CLOSURE trial (Randomized Comparison of Catheter-based Strategies for Interventional Access Site Closure during Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) is an investigator-initiated, multicenter study, in which patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement were randomly assigned to vascular access site closure using either a pure plug-based technique (MANTA, Teleflex) with no additional VCDs or a primary suture-based technique (ProGlide, Abbott Vascular) potentially complemented by a small plug. The primary end point consisted of access site- or access-related major and minor vascular complications during index hospitalization, defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Secondary end points included the rate of access site- or access-related bleeding, VCD failure, and time to hemostasis. RESULTS: A total of 516 patients were included and randomly assigned. The mean age of the study population was 80.5±6.1 years, 55.4% were male, 7.6% of patients had peripheral vascular disease, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.1±2.9%. The primary end point occurred in 19.4% (50/258) of the pure plug-based group and 12.0% (31/258) of the primary suture-based group (relative risk, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.07-2.44], P=0.029). Access site- or access-related bleeding occurred in 11.6% versus 7.4% (relative risk, 1.58 [95%CI: 0.91-2.73], P=0.133) and device failure in 4.7% versus 5.4% (relative risk, 0.86, [95% CI, 0.40-1.82], P=0.841) in the respective groups. Time to hemostasis was significantly shorter in the pure plug-based group (80 [32-180] versus 240 [174-316] seconds, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients treated with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement, a pure plug-based vascular closure technique using the MANTA VCD is associated with a higher rate of access site- or access-related vascular complications but a shorter time to hemostasis compared with a primary suture-based technique using the ProGlide VCD. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04459208.

A study of bailout plug-based closure after failed suture-based closure in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous suture-based arterial access site closure (ProGlide) is commonly applied in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, the failure of a suture-based vascular closure device (VCD) may require additional treatment. AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bailout access site closure using a large-bore plug-based device (MANTA) in patients with failed suture-based closure during transfemoral TAVI. METHODS: Patients undergoing a bailout attempt with the MANTA VCD were identified from a prospectively enrolling, institutional registry. Efficacy was defined as haemostasis at the access site without the need for alternative treatment other than manual compression or endovascular ballooning. Safety was defined as freedom from vascular dissection, stenosis and occlusion requiring intervention. RESULTS: Of 2,505 patients, 66 underwent a bailout attempt with MANTA as a result of ProGlide failure, which occurred before the large-bore sheath insertion in 16.7% of patients and after the sheath removal in 83.3% of patients. Bailout MANTA was deemed effective in 75.8% of patients (50/66), and the technique was considered safe in 86.4% (57/66) of patients. Failure of bailout MANTA occurred because of its superficial application, resulting in persistent bleeding in 18.2% of patients (12/66), and because of its deep application, resulting in stenosis or occlusion in 6.1% of patients (4/66). Operator experience with the technique (odds ratio [OR] 12.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.99-75.99; p=0.007) and prior use of three ProGlides (OR 0.02, 95% CI: <0.01-0.39; p=0.010) were the only independent predictors of the efficacy endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: Bailout MANTA after ProGlide failure was effective and safe, but operator experience seems to be crucial. Further technological refinements to facilitate accurate placement appear necessary.

Prognostic significance and clinical utility of left atrial reservoir strain in transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

AIMS: Patients with diastolic dysfunction (DD) experience worse outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We investigated the prognostic value and clinical utility of left atrial reservoir strain (LARS) in patients undergoing TAVR for aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS AND RESULTS: All consecutive patients undergoing TAVR between January 2018 and December 2018 were included if discharge echocardiography and follow-up were available. LARS was derived from 2D-speckle-tracking. Patients were grouped into three tertiles according to LARS. DD was analysed using the ASE/EACVI-algorithm. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death and readmission for worsening heart failure 12 months after TAVR. Overall, 606 patients were available [age 80 years, interquartile range (IQR) 77-84], including 53% women. Median LARS was 13.0% (IQR 8.4-18.3). Patients were classified by LARS tertiles [mildly impaired 21.4% (IQR 18.3-24.5), moderately impaired 13.0% (IQR 11.3-14.6), severely impaired 7.1% (IQR 5.4-8.4), P < 0.0001]. The primary outcome occurred more often in patients with impaired LARS (mildly impaired 7.4%, moderately impaired 13.4%, and severely impaired 25.7%, P < 0.0001). On adjusted multivariable Cox regression analysis, LARS tertiles [hazard ratio (HR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.86, P = 0.005] and higher degree of tricuspid regurgitation (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.23-2.98, P = 0.003) were the only significant predictors of the primary endpoint. Importantly, DD was unavailable in 56% of patients, but LARS assessment allowed for reliable prognostication regarding the primary endpoint in subgroups without DD assessment (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.87, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Impaired LARS is independently associated with worse outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR. LARS allows for risk stratification at discharge even in patients where DD cannot be assessed by conventional echocardiographic means.

Femoral Arterial Calcification and Plug- vs. Suture-Based Closure Device Strategies Post-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Insights From CHOICE-CLOSURE.

Background: The location and severity of vascular calcification may influence closure device success in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The aim of this study was to analyze effects of vascular access-site calcification on vascular and bleeding outcomes post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Methods: The Randomized Comparison of CatHeter-based Strategies fOr Interventional ACcess SitE CLOSURE during Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (CHOICE-CLOSURE) trial assigned 516 patients to access site closure using a pure plug-based technique (MANTA, Teleflex) or a primary suture-based technique (ProGlide, Abbott Vascular). The principal finding of the overall study was that access-site or access-related complications were more common after the plug-based strategy compared to percutaneous closure with a suture-based strategy. In this predefined subgroup analysis, the overall cohort was split into patients with and without anterior calcification at the access site and divided by degree of calcification severity using the classification system developed in the MANTA vs. suture-based vascular closure after transcatHeter aortic valve replacement (MASH) trial. Differences in bleeding and vascular complications were compared. The primary endpoint consisted of access-site- or access-related major and minor vascular complications. Results: There were more access-site-related major and minor vascular complications for patients with anterior wall vascular calcification and MASH severe calcification. No significant interaction with choice of closure technique in terms of access-site-related major and minor vascular complications was observed (odds ratio 1.70, 95% CI 0.77-3.78, p = 0.19 for the primary endpoint in plug- vs. suture-based strategy in patients with anterior calcification, odds ratio 1.78, 95% CI 0.56-5.65, p = 0.33 for primary endpoint in plug- vs. suture-based strategy with MASH severe calcification, pint = 0.97 for anterior calcification, pint = 0.95 for MASH severe calcification). Conclusions: The total number of vascular complications was found to be greater in the presence of anterior and MASH severe calcification. Overall, the presence of anterior or severe calcification does not significantly modify the efficacy of the suture-based strategy compared to the plug-based strategy.

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.

Risk Assessment of Coronary Obstruction During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From Post-BASILICA Computed Tomography.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the predictive value of preprocedural computed tomography (CT)-based risk stratification of coronary obstruction during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on the basis of geometric measurements on postprocedural CT. BACKGROUND: Proper patient selection for additional procedures to prevent coronary obstruction during TAVR has not been adequately evaluated. METHODS: Pre- and postprocedural computed tomographic scans of 28 patients treated using bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction (BASILICA) and TAVR were analyzed. Using the postprocedural computed tomographic images, threatened coronary obstruction (TCO) was defined as: 1) ostial obstruction (adherence of the transcatheter heart valve [THV] to the coronary ostium with leaflet extension above the ostium); and/or 2) sinus sequestration (THV adherence to the sinotubular junction [STJ] with leaflet extension above the STJ) and was substratified into complete and incomplete types. RESULTS: A total of 51 leaflets were evaluated (88% surgical tissue valves) after excluding leaflets not visible on CT (n = 5). On postprocedural CT, complete TCO was observed in 25.4% (13 of 51 leaflets). On preprocedural CT, leaflets were at high risk for complete TCO (incidence 53%) if the virtual THV-to-coronary distance (VTC) was <3.0 mm, or if the virtual THV-to-STJ distance (VTSTJ) was <1.0 mm with STJ height - leaflet length <0 mm (leaflet-STJ mismatch). Leaflets were at low risk (incidence 0%) if the VTC was ≥3 mm and VTSTJ was ≥3.0 mm or STJ height - leaflet length was ≥+2.0 mm. Of 28 leaflets treated using BASILICA, complete TCO was seen in 35.7% (n = 10), due to sinus sequestration (100%) with coexisting ostial obstruction (30%). Actual coronary events occurred in 7.1% (n = 2) because of leaflet prolapse, corresponding to an absolute risk reduction by BASILICA of 29% (P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Risk assessment of coronary obstruction after TAVR may improve with a multiparametric approach incorporating VTC, VTSTJ, and leaflet-STJ mismatch. BASILICA appeared to reduce actual coronary events even in leaflets with anticipated coronary obstruction.

Manta versus Perclose ProGlide vascular closure device after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Initial experience from a large European center.

BACKGROUND: Vascular and bleeding complications are common after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and are associated with worse outcomes. The plug-based Manta (M) vascular closure device (VCD) is a novel option to achieve haemostasis for large-bore arterial access sites. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare vascular and bleeding complications between the M-VCD and the established suture-based Perclose ProGlide (P)-VCD. METHODS: From February to September 2019 a total of 578 patients underwent transfemoral TAVI at a single high-volume centre. Access site closure was performed using M-VCD in 195 patients (33.7%) and P-VCD in 383 patients (66.3%). We assessed vascular and access site-related complications as well as bleeding events according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definition. RESULTS: Overall vascular complications occurred less frequently in the M-VCD group (10.7% vs. 19.0%, p = 0.011) driven by a significantly lower rate of major vascular events (2.0% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.025). Access site-related complications were significantly less frequent in the M-VCD cohort (10.7% vs. 16.6%, p = 0.048). The M-VCD was associated with significantly lower rates of major (0.5% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.009) and life-threatening bleeding (0% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.032). In multivariable analysis, the use of M-VCD was the only independent predictor of vascular complications (odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.91, p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: The M-VCD was associated with a reduction of vascular and access-site complications as well as severe bleeding after transfemoral TAVI compared to the P-VCD in this observational study.