Comparison of vascular closure devices vs manual compression after femoral artery puncture: the ISAR-CLOSURE randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: The role of vascular closure devices (VCD) for the achievement of hemostasis in patients undergoing transfemoral coronary angiography remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes with the use of 2 hemostasis strategies after diagnostic coronary angiography performed via transfemoral access-a VCD-based strategy with 2 types of devices, an intravascular device and an extravascular device, vs standard manual compression. The primary hypothesis to be tested was that femoral hemostasis achieved through VCD is noninferior to manual compression in terms of vascular access-site complications. A secondary objective was the comparison of the 2 types of VCD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, large-scale, multicenter, open-label clinical trial. We enrolled 4524 patients undergoing coronary angiography with a 6 French sheath via the common femoral artery from April 2011 through May 2014 in 4 centers in Germany. Last 30-day follow-up was performed in July 2014. INTERVENTIONS: After angiography of the access site, patients were randomized to hemostasis with an intravascular VCD, extravascular VCD, or manual compression in a 1:1:1 ratio. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary end point: the composite of access site-related vascular complications at 30 days after randomization with a 2% noninferiority margin. Secondary end points: time to hemostasis, repeat manual compression, and VCD failure. An α-level of .025 was chosen for primary and secondary comparisons. RESULTS: Of the 4524 enrolled patients, 3015 were randomly assigned to a VCD group (1509 received intravascular VCD and 1506 received extravascular VCD) and 1509 patients were randomly assigned to the manual compression group. Before hospital discharge, duplex sonography of the access site was performed in 4231 (94%) patients. The primary end point was observed in 208 patients (6.9%) assigned to receive a VCD and 119 patients (7.9%) assigned to manual compression (difference, -1.0% [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.7%]; P for noninferiority<.001). Time to hemostasis was significantly shorter in patients with VCD (1 minute [interquartile range {IQR}, 0.5-2.0]), vs manual compression (10 minutes [IQR, 10-15]; P < .001). Time to hemostasis was significantly shorter among patients with intravascular VCD (0.5 minute [IQR, 0.2-1.0]), vs extravascular VCD (2.0 minutes [IQR, 1.0-2.0]; P <.001) and closure device failure was also significantly lower among those with intravascular vs extravascular VCD (80 patients [5.3%], vs 184 patients [12.2%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients undergoing transfemoral coronary angiography, VCDs were noninferior to manual compression in terms of vascular access-site complications and reduced time to hemostasis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01389375.

Comparison of Vascular Closure Devices vs Manual Compression After Femoral Artery Puncture in Patients on Oral Anticoagulation - Post Hoc Analysis of the ISAR-CLOSURE Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare vascular closure devices (VCD) with manual compression (MC) in patients on chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC) who undergo diagnostic coronary angiography in terms of vascular access-site complications. METHODS: This is a subanalysis of 604 patients that had undergone transfemoral diagnostic coronary angiography and were randomly assigned to arteriotomy closure with either VCDs (intravascular FemoSeal VCD or extravascular EXOSEAL VCD) or MC within the large scale, randomized ISAR-CLOSURE trial. Primary endpoint was the composite of access-site-related vascular complications at 30 days. Secondary endpoints were time to hemostasis and repeat MC. RESULTS: Vascular access-site complications were similar in patients assigned to VCDs compared to MC (8.2% vs 10.6%; P=.33). There was no interaction of treatment effect and OAC (P interaction = 0.59). Rates of pseudoaneurysms were lower with VCDs (0.8% vs 3.2%; P=.02). Time to hemostasis was significantly shortened with VCDs compared to MC (1 [IQR 0.5-2.0] min vs 12 [IQR 10-15] min; P<.001). There was no difference regarding repeat MC in both groups (VCD 1.5% vs MC 0.5%; P=.23). Time to hemostasis (0.5 [0.2-1.0] min, vs 2.0 [1.75-2.0] min; P<.001) and closure device failure (3.7% vs 17.2%; P<.001) were lower with the intravascular VCD, compared with the extravascular VCD. CONCLUSIONS: In patients on chronic OAC undergoing transfemoral diagnostic coronary angiography, the use of VCDs was comparable to MC regarding the primary combined endpoint of vascular access-site related complications. VCDs reduced the occurrence of pseudoaneurysms and time to hemostasis.

Safety and efficacy of a potential treatment algorithm by using manual compression repair and ultrasound-guided thrombin injection for the management of iatrogenic femoral artery pseudoaneurysm in a large patient cohort.

BACKGROUND: Because of the risk of associated complications, femoral pseudoaneurysm (PSA) formation implies further treatment. Ultrasound-guided thrombin injection (UGTI) is becoming the accepted gold standard, but manual compression (MC) represents an established treatment option including PSAs not feasible for UGTI. This study aims to assess our experience in PSA treatment using MC or UGTI according to a potential algorithm based on morphological properties in a large patient cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between January 2007 and January 2011, a total of 432 PSAs were diagnosed in 29091 consecutive patients (1.49%) undergoing femoral artery catheterization. When compressible, small PSAs (<20 mm), PSAs without clearly definable neck, PSAs directly adjacent to vessels, and PSAs with concomitant arteriovenous fistula were referred to MC (n=145, 34%). All other PSAs were treated by UGTI (n=287, 66%). Follow-up duplex scans were performed within 12 to 14 hours after manual compression therapy and within 4 to 6 hours after UGTI or by the next morning and were available for 428 patients (99.1%). The overall success rate of our institutional therapeutic approach was 97.2%, which was achieved by 178 MC- and 357 UGTI-procedures, respectively. Procedural complications occurred in 5 cases (1.4%) after UGTI and in 3 cases (1.7%) after MC, respectively. The treatment algorithm was not successful in 12 patients, whereas 2 PSAs (0.5%) were successfully excluded by implantation of a covered stent-graft, and 10 patients necessitated surgical intervention (2.3%), which was associated with a high complication rate (30%). CONCLUSIONS: The presented treatment algorithm facilitates effective and safe PSA elimination.

Rationale and design of a randomised clinical trial comparing vascular closure device and manual compression to achieve haemostasis after diagnostic coronary angiography: the Instrumental Sealing of ARterial puncture site - CLOSURE device versus manual compression (ISAR-CLOSURE) trial.

AIMS: Vascular closure devices (VCD) have been introduced into clinical practice with the aim of increasing the procedural efficiency and clinical safety of coronary angiography. However, clinical studies comparing VCD and manual compression have yielded mixed results, and large randomised clinical trials comparing the two strategies are missing. Moreover, comparative efficacy studies between different VCD in routine clinical use are lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Instrumental Sealing of ARterial puncture site - CLOSURE device versus manual compression (ISAR-CLOSURE) trial is a prospective, randomised clinical trial designed to compare the outcomes associated with the use of VCD or manual compression to achieve femoral haemostasis. The test hypothesis is that femoral haemostasis after coronary angiography achieved using VCD is not inferior to manual compression in terms of access-site-related vascular complications. Patients undergoing coronary angiography via the common femoral artery will be randomised in a 1:1:1 fashion to receive FemoSeal VCD, EXOSEAL VCD or manual compression. The primary endpoint is the incidence of the composite of arterial access-related complications (haematoma ≥5 cm, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, access-site-related bleeding, acute ipsilateral leg ischaemia, the need for vascular surgical/interventional treatment or documented local infection) at 30 days after randomisation. According to power calculations based on non-inferiority hypothesis testing, enrolment of 4,500 patients is planned. The trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier: NCT01389375). CONCLUSIONS: The safety of VCD as compared to manual compression in patients undergoing transfemoral coronary angiography remains an issue of clinical equipoise. The aim of the ISAR-CLOSURE trial is to assess whether femoral haemostasis achieved through the use of VCD is non-inferior to manual compression in terms of access-site-related vascular complications.

Vascular access and closure in coronary angiography and percutaneous intervention.

The key feature defining transcatheter cardiovascular interventions is that access to the vessels and heart is achieved by arterial puncture with a needle, rather than surgical incision with a scalpel. However, arteriotomy and vessel closure are performed without direct visualization of the arterial wall, which risks vessel damage and bleeding. Vascular closure devices offer the potential for enhanced control of access-site haemostasis and reduced complications in comparison with manual compression. However, although randomized clinical trials have shown reductions in time to haemostasis and ambulation, the data do not demonstrate consistent reductions in access-site complications or improvements in clinical outcomes. Another approach to increase the safety of percutaneous procedures is to use radial, rather than femoral, arterial access, a strategy that has polarized opinions among cardiologists. Clinical trial data show a clear reduction in access-site bleeding and complications with radial access, at the expense of a marginal increase in markers of procedural efficiency. However, randomized trials have not demonstrated improved clinical outcomes with radial access. The lack of impact on prognostically relevant bleeding events could explain this null finding, although the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention could be an exception. Ongoing, iterative improvement in catheter technologies, as well as in adjuvant antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapies, are likely to underlie the difficulty in demonstrating clear outcome benefits with different vascular access and closure strategies.