Patient Satisfaction After Femoral Arterial Access Site Closure Using the ExoSeal® Vascular Closure Device Compared to Manual Compression: A Prospective Intra-individual Comparative Study

Comparison of Vascular Complications after Arterial Sheath Removal using Manual Compression Method and ClampEase Method in Patients Undergoing Coronary Angiography

Introduction

Angiography stands as the paramount and definitive diagnostic method for coronary artery disease. However, akin to various other invasive procedures, it may carry a multitude of complications. This study sought to assess the incidence of vascular complications post-arterial sheath removal, comparing the use of a ClampEase device against manual compression.

Methods

This quasi-experimental clinical trial involved patients undergoing angiography at the post-angiography ward in Isfahan, Iran. A total of 91 patients were selected through convenience sampling and randomly assigned to either the manual compression or ClampEase device groups. Monitoring common vascular complications like hemorrhage, hematomas, and ecchymosis occurred up to 24 hours post-arterial sheath removal. Data were collected using a digital scale model DM3, a transparent flexible ruler, and a questionnaire named 'vascular complications after angiography.' Analysis was performed using SPSS software version 13.

Results

Statistical analysis revealed that, when compared to the manual method, compression with the ClampEase device led to fewer vascular complications in patients and a quicker return to homeostasis.

Conclusion

The findings underscore that the ClampEase method is a safer alternative with fewer vascular complications than the manual compression method. This discovery has implications for reducing hospital costs and length of stay. The ClampEase device is associated with a swifter time to hemostasis, contributing to enhanced patient comfort and acceptance.

Efficacy and Safety of Axiostat® Hemostatic Dressing in Aiding Manual Compression Closure of the Femoral Arterial Access Site in Patients Undergoing Endovascular Treatments: A Preliminary Clinical Experience in Two Centers

BACKGROUND

Hemostasis of the femoral arterial access site by manual compression or a vascular closure device is critical to the safe completion of any endovascular procedure. Previous investigations evaluated the hemostatic efficacy at the radial access site of some chitosan-based hemostatic pads. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of a new chitosan-based hemostatic dressing, namely Axiostat^®, in aiding manual compression closure of the femoral arterial access site in patients undergoing endovascular treatments. Furthermore, the outcomes were compared with evidence on manual compression alone and vascular closure devices.

METHODS

This investigation is a two-center retrospective analysis of 120 consecutive patients who had undergone, from July 2022 to February 2023, manual compression closure of the femoral arterial access site aided by the Axiostat^® hemostatic dressing. Endovascular procedures performed with introducer sheaths ranging from 4 Fr to 8 Fr were evaluated.

RESULTS

Primary technical success was achieved in 110 (91.7%) patients, with adequate hemostasis obtained in all cases of prolonged manual compression requirements. The mean time-to-hemostasis and time-to-ambulation were 8.9 (±3.9) and 462 (±199) minutes, respectively. Clinical success was achieved in 113 (94.2%) patients, with bleeding-related complications noted in 7 (5.8%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual compression aided by the Axiostat^® hemostatic dressing is effective and safe in achieving hemostasis of the femoral arterial access site in patients undergoing endovascular treatment with a 4-8 Fr introducer sheath.

Vascular Closure Devices versus Manual Compression in Cardiac Interventional Procedures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Backgrounds

Manual compression (MC) and vascular closure device (VCD) are two methods of vascular access site hemostasis after cardiac interventional procedures. However, there is still controversial over the use of them and a lack of comprehensive and systematic meta-analysis on this issue.

Methods

Original articles comparing VCD and MC in cardiac interventional procedures were searched in PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science through April 2022. Efficacy, safety, patient satisfaction, and other parameters were assessed between two groups. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated by I² index and the Cochran Q test, respectively. Publication bias was assessed using the funnel plot and Egger's test.

Results

A total of 32 studies were included after screening with inclusion and exclusion criteria (33481 patients). This meta-analysis found that VCD resulted in shorter time to hemostasis, ambulation, and discharge (p < 0.00001). In terms of vascular complication risks, VCD group might be associated with a lower risk of major complications (p = 0.0001), but the analysis limited to randomized controlled trials did not support this result (p = 0.68). There was no significant difference in total complication rates (p = 0.08) and bleeding-related complication rates (p = 0.05) between the two groups. Patient satisfaction was higher in VCD group (p = 0.002). Meta-regression analysis revealed no specific covariate as an influencing factor for above results (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Compared with MC, the use of VCDs significantly shortens the time of hemostasis and allows earlier ambulation and discharge, meanwhile without increase in vascular complications. In addition, use of VCDs achieves higher patient satisfaction and leads cost savings for patients and institutions.

Comparison of the effect of manual compression and closure pad on postangiography complications: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Different methods are available for the closure of the femoral artery after catheterization. The present study aimed at comparing the effect of manual compression (MC) and closure pad (CP) on vascular complications (hematoma and bleeding) of coronary angiography.

METHODS

In the current clinical trial, a total of 238 patients who were candidates for angiography were randomly assigned to the MC and CP groups. In the MC group, after removal of the arterial sheath, the arterial puncture site was manually compressed for 5-10 minutes and hemostasis was achieved. In the CP group, after removal of the arterial sheath, the arterial puncture site was first manually compressed for 5-10 minutes and initial coagulation was achieved. Then, to continue the coagulation process, a CP was attached to the artery puncture site. Postangiography complications including bleeding and hematoma were monitored in both groups immediately and up to 24 hours after hemostasis. Data were analyzed by SPSS-18 software.

RESULTS

After angiography, 7 (9.5%) and 5 (2.4%) patients had hematoma in the MC and CP groups, respectively; however, no significant difference was found between the groups. Rebleeding after hemostasis was observed in 2 (7.1%) patients in the MC group, but none of the subjects in the CP group had rebleeding. There was no significant difference in bleeding volume between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The results indicated the same efficacy of MC and CP methods in the prevention of postangiography vascular complications. Given the advantages of CP such as the possibility of changing the position in bed and increased physical comfort in the patient, this method is recommended for angiography and catheterization.

Venous Vascular Closure System Versus Manual Compression Following Multiple Access Electrophysiology Procedures: The AMBULATE Trial

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the efficacy and safety of the VASCADE MVP Venous Vascular Closure System (VVCS) device (Cardiva Medical, Santa Clara, California) to manual compression (MC) for closing multiple access sites after catheter-based electrophysiology procedures.

BACKGROUND

The VASCADE MVP VVCS is designed to provide earlier ambulatory hemostasis than MC after catheter-based procedures.

METHODS

The AMBULATE (A Randomized, Multi-center Trial to Compare Cardiva Mid-Bore [VASCADE MVP] VVCS to Manual Compression in Closure of Multiple Femoral Venous Access Sites in 6 - 12 Fr Sheath Sizes) trial was a multicenter, randomized trial of device closure versus MC in patients who underwent ablation. Outcomes included time to ambulation (TTA), total post-procedure time (TPPT), time to discharge eligibility (TTDe), time to hemostasis (TTH), 30-day major and minor complications, pain medication usage, and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 204 patients at 13 sites were randomized to the device arm (n = 100; 369 access sites) or the MC arm (n = 104; 382 access sites). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Mean TTA, TPPT, TTDe, and TTH were substantially lower in the device arm (respective decreases of 54%, 54%, 52%, and 55%; all p < 0.0001). Opioid use was reduced by 58% (p = 0.001). There were no major access site complications. Incidence of minor complications was 1.0% for the device arm and 2.4% for the MC arm (p = 0.45). Patient satisfaction scores with duration of and comfort during bedrest were 63% and 36% higher in device group (both p < 0.0001). Satisfaction with bedrest pain was 25% higher (p = 0.001) for the device overall, and 40% higher (p = 0.002) for patients with a previous ablation.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the closure device for multiple access ablation procedures resulted in significant reductions in TTA, TPPT, TTH, TTDe, and opioid use, with increased patient satisfaction and no increase in complications. (A Randomized, Multi-center Trial to Compare Cardiva Mid-Bore VVCS to Manual Compression in Closure of Multiple Femoral Venous Access Sites in 6 - 12 Fr Sheath Sizes [AMBULATE]; NCT03193021).

A Retrospective Study Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety of EXOSEAL Vascular Closure Device to Manual Compression in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Transbrachial Procedures

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of EXOSEAL vascular closure device (EVCD) insertion by comparing its performance with manual compression (MC) in achieving hemostasis at the brachial artery puncture site.

METHODS

A retrospective study of brachial artery access by using either MC or EVCD for achieving hemostasis from March 2016 to October 2017 was conducted. Patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD) undergoing percutaneous transbrachial procedures were included. Time to hemostasis (TTH) was the primary efficacy end point. Seven-day incidence of major access site-related complications was the primary safety end point. TTH and major and minor complications associated with treatment of these 2 groups were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients with TBAD undergoing percutaneous transbrachial procedures entered the analysis. Of these, 107 patients underwent EVCD insertion and 50 patients underwent MC. The baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were similar. TTH was significantly shorter for EVCD over MC (P < 0.05). The TTH ≥10 min in the MC group was 100.0% (n = 50), but in the EVCD group, it was ≤2 min, 87.9% (n = 107); 2-5 min, 7.5% (n = 107); and ≥10 min, 4.7% (n = 107). The EVCD group had several major complications, while the MC group had none. Two patients (1.9%, n = 107) required vascular repair, one patient (0.6%, n = 107) required blood transfusion, and 1 patient (0.6%, n = 107) developed upper limb numbness and weakness after EVCD deployment. Minor complication such as the occurrence of hematoma (≤5 cm) in the MC group was 4 (8.0%) but was also 4 (3.7%) in the EVCD group, showing statistically significant difference (P = 0.030). The incidence of ecchymosis was 8 (7.5%) in the EVCD group when compared with 13 (26.0%) in the MC group, which showed statistically significant difference (P = 0.001). Other major and minor complications showed no significant differences between these 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

After invasive procedures by 6F percutaneous access via the brachial artery in preprocedurally fully anticoagulated patients, TTH was significantly reduced in patients who underwent EVCD when compared with patients who underwent MC. MC is a safer and more convenient way to achieve hemostasis but has higher incidence of minor complications.