Search

Objective The aim of this review was to provide an up-to-date summarization of available Food and Drug Administration-approved vascular closure devices (VCDs) and to analyze current evidence comparing individual devices with one another and with manual compression (MC). The review includes indications for use, advantages and disadvantages, safety and efficacy, and outcomes. Methods A review of literature available on VCDs was conducted using PubMed and MEDLINE. Only clinical trials published within the last 10 years evaluating the efficacy of different VCDs with access obtained through common femoral artery or vein were included. All literature included in this review was published in English and used human participants. Results The search strategy yielded 34 relevant articles. These studies included procedures ranging from diagnostic catheterizations to percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair. There is considerable heterogeneity in the studies, with a wide variety of definitions and different outcome measures. The review demonstrated that VCDs provided improvement in the patients' comfort and satisfaction as well as in the time to hemostasis and ambulation. Most studies are underpowered to show differences, but even after meta-analysis or Cochrane review, complication rates as well as safety and efficacy between devices and MC remained comparable. Conclusions VCDs have shown marked improvement in patients' comfort and satisfaction as well as in time to hemostasis and ambulation after percutaneous vascular procedures. According to multiple small randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and a Cochrane review, complication rates, safety and efficacy, and outcomes remain comparable between VCDs and MC (12% for VCDs vs 13% for MC). VCDs have a low incidence of major complications and high success rates, which provides convenience for the practitioner and facilitates turnover of patients. VCDs have a risk of infectious (0.6% with VCDs vs 0.2% with MC) and thrombotic complications (0.3% with VCDs vs none with MC) that is small but may be increased compared with MC. It is important to balance the goals of comfort of the patient, resources of the staff, and early ambulation against periprocedural and anatomic risk factors (ie, individualize use of VCDs to specific clinical scenarios). Users must be familiar with a device and its limitations to safely and effectively achieve hemostasis after femoral artery puncture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of the StarClose device following intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation using 8-Fr femoral sheaths. Subjects and Methods: From June 2008 to August 2012, 42 consecutive patients who received IABP implantation via common femoral artery (CFA) punctures with an 8-Fr sheath (which were then sealed with the StarClose Vascular Closure System at the bedside) were included in this retrospective single-arm study. All the patients underwent duplex control of the puncture site 24 h after deployment of the device, in order to determine the presence or absence of vascular complications including hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula and arterial/venous thrombosis or stenosis. The safety end points were the vascular complications during the hospital stay, and the efficacy end points included device and procedure success. Results: The procedure success rate was 92.9% (39/42) and the device success rate was 88.1% (37/42). Major vascular complications occurred in 3 (7.1%) patients; 1 developed a massive hematoma >10 cm which was managed by blood transfusion and surgical reconstruction, and the other 2 developed pseudoaneurysm which was cured by ultrasound-guided thrombin injection or manual compression. Minor vascular complications occurred in 5 (11.9%) patients, including blood oozing in 2, hematoma <5 cm in 2 and severe pain in the remaining patient. Conclusion: CFA closure with the StarClose device was safe, feasible and effective in patients undergoing IABP support using 8-Fr sheath sizes. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The 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. Background: VCDs 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. Methods: From 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. Results: Among 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. Conclusions: VCD failure rates vary depending upon the type of VCD used and are associated with significantly higher vascular complications as compared with deployment successes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: Transradial access (RA) is associated with less complications and is preferred by patients. Vascular closure devices (VCDs) may improve discomfort and may reduce complications associated with transfemoral access. Aim was to evaluate complications and discomfort associated with percutaneous coronary procedures employing RA or VCDs. Methods: We enrolled 1492 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary procedures with RA (604 procedures), femoral approach with manual compression (MC) (276 procedures), or with either Angioseal™ (311 procedures) or Starclose™ (301 procedures) closure device. Discomfort was assessed using procedure-specific questions. Major vascular complications were evaluated during hospitalization. Results: RA significantly reduced major complications (0.7%) compared to either the MC (2.9%, p =0.03) or the VCDs (Starclose™ 2.7%, Angioseal™ 3.9%, p =0.003). There were no significant differences in major complications between MC and either the Angioseal™ or the Starclose™. At multivariate analysis the RA was predictor of reduced complications (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08–0.85, p =0.03 vs MC, and OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07–0.57, p =0.003 vs VCDs). The RA was associated with a significant reduction in procedural discomfort with 44.2% of patients referring no discomfort (p <0.0001). Starclose™ and Angioseal™ were better tolerated than MC (27.8%, 29.3% and 8.9% patients respectively without discomfort, p <0.0001). Conclusions: RA is associated with a significant reduction in major vascular complications compared to femoral approach even if two different VCDs are employed. VCDs are better tolerated than MC but the RA was associated with the lowest discomfort. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The StarClose device (Abbott Vascular Devices; Abbott Laboratories, Redwood City, CA) utilizes an externally placed Nitinol clip to achieve arterial closure following femoral artery puncture. The objectives of this study were to assess the efficacy and complications of the StarClose device in patients undergoing interventional radiological procedures. Preprocedural clotting status, pulse and blood pressure, severity of vessel calcification, sheath size, and time to deployment were recorded. Postdeployment complications immediately postprocedure, at 1 h, at 2 h, and at 1 week were recorded. A duplex scan was performed in the first 10 patients to assess any immediate vascular complications. Deployments were successful in 96% achieving immediate hemostasis. Mean deployment time was 48 s. There were no major complications. The StarClose device was found to have a high technical and clinical efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Access site complication rates remain relatively high following interventional procedures and have not been shown to be reduced by the use of vascular closure devices. This report describes an ultrasound-assisted technique of deploying one type of vascular closure device, the StarClose (Abbott Vascular, Illinois, USA). This technique has significantly reduced failure rates and complication rates since its introduction. The technique is relatively simple but requires familiarity with the use of ultrasound and the StarClose device. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]