1. Vascular Closure Device Failure in Contemporary Practice
- Author
-
Venkatesan Vidi, Susan Robbins, Michael E. Matheny, Frederic S. Resnic, Vikram Agarwal, Sripal Bangalore, Sharon-Lise T. Normand, and Usha Govindarajulu
- Subjects
Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,endocrine system ,complications ,medicine.medical_treatment ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,Article ,030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging ,Time to ambulation ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ,Medicine ,Humans ,Vascular closure device ,Patient comfort ,Aged ,Retrospective Studies ,business.industry ,Wound Closure Techniques ,Absolute risk reduction ,Percutaneous coronary intervention ,Angio-Seal ,vascular closure device ,Middle Aged ,StarClose ,3. Good health ,Surgery ,Hemostasis ,Conventional PCI ,Perclose ,Access site ,Equipment Failure ,Female ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,business ,Vascular Surgical Procedures - Abstract
ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to assess the frequency and predictors of vascular closure device (VCD) deployment failure, and its association with vascular complications of 3 commonly used VCDs.BackgroundVCDs are commonly used following percutaneous coronary intervention on the basis of studies demonstrating reduced time to ambulation, increased patient comfort, and possible reduction in vascular complications as compared with manual compression. However, limited data are available on the frequency and predictors of VCD failure, and the association of deployment failure with vascular complications.MethodsFrom a de-identified dataset provided by Massachusetts Department of Health, 23,813 consecutive interventional coronary procedures that used either a collagen plug–based (n = 18,533), a nitinol clip–based (n = 2,284), or a suture-based (n = 2,996) VCD between June 2005 and December 2007 were identified. The authors defined VCD failure as unsuccessful deployment or failure to achieve immediate access site hemostasis.ResultsAmong 23,813 procedures, the VCD failed in 781 (3.3%) procedures (2.1% of collagen plug–based, 6.1% of suture-based, 9.5% of nitinol clip–based VCDs). Patients with VCD failure had an excess risk of “any” (7.7% vs. 2.8%; p < 0.001), major (3.3% vs. 0.8%; p < 0.001), or minor (5.8% vs. 2.1%; p < 0.001) vascular complications compared with successful VCD deployment. In a propensity score–adjusted analysis, when compared with collagen plug–based VCD (reference odds ratio [OR] = 1.0), nitinol clip–based VCD had 2-fold increased risk (OR: 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8 to 2.3, p < 0.001) and suture-based VCD had 1.25-fold increased risk (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.2 to 1.3, p < 0.001) for VCD failure. VCD failure was a significant predictor of subsequent vascular complications for both collagen plug–based VCD and nitinol clip–based VCD, but not for suture-based VCD.ConclusionsVCD failure rates vary depending upon the type of VCD used and are associated with significantly higher vascular complications as compared with deployment successes.
- Full Text
- View/download PDF