Large-scale experience with an anchorless vascular closure device in a real-life clinical setting

Factors related to insufficient hemostasis using the EXOSEAL vascular closure device with five-minutes compression for femoral artery punctures after neuro-endovascular therapy: A retrospective, single-center experience

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to identify the factors related to inadequate hemostasis with five minutes of manual compression using the EXOSEAL vascular closure device (VCD), and to evaluate the optimal time to hemostasis (TTH).

METHODS

A total of 119 consecutive patients who underwent neuro-endovascular therapy via common femoral arterial puncture between February 2019 and August 2021 were included. These patients underwent hemostasis using an EXOSEAL with manual compression for five minutes. In this retrospective study, the 119 patients were divided into two groups: (1) achieved hemostasis with five minutes (n = 76); and (2) required more than five minutes to achieve hemostasis (n = 43, Add group). In both groups, patient's characteristics, endovascular procedures, and closure procedures were assessed.

RESULTS

On univariable analysis, activated clotting time (ACT), multiple antiplatelets, closure with an under-sized EXOSEAL VCD (U-VCD), endovascular procedure, and use of a 7Fr. VCD were significantly associated with additional compression (p < 0.05). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, the following three factors were found to be associated with additional compression: pre-closure ACT (adjusted OR, 0.136; 95% CI, 1.017-1.056; p < 0.001); multiple antithrombotics (adjusted OR, 12.843; 95% CI, 3.458-47.693; p < 0.001); and closure with a U-VCD (adjusted OR, 5.653; 95% CI, 1.751-18.151; p = 0.004). On the receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis for prediction of the need for additional compression, the cutoff point for pre-closure ACT was calculated to be 268 s. In the Add group, mean TTH was 9.8 ± 1.5 min.

CONCLUSION

Multiple antiplatelets and closure with a U-VCD may increase the risk of insufficient hemostasis with five-minutes compression using an EXOSEAL VCD for femoral puncture sites if the pre-closure ACT is greater than 268 s. In these patients, mean TTH was 9.8 ± 1.5 min.

Perclose Proglide™ for vascular closure

In the past 20 years, numerous percutaneous vascular closure devices have been tested and compared with manual compression and to surgical cut-down. The suture-mediated closure device Perclose ProGlide™ system (Abbott Vascular, CA, USA) emerged as a safe and effective alternative for many procedures requiring either small or large bore vascular accesses. In this review, we will discuss the characteristics of this vascular closure device and the main studies that proved its potential to reduce vascular complications, time to deambulation, time to discharge and patient discomfort.

Korean single-center experience with femoral access closure using the ExoSeal device

AIM

To report 17-mo experience of femoral artery puncture site closure during angiographic procedures using ExoSeal vascular closure devices (VCDs).

METHODS

Between November 2015 and April 2017, we performed 179 diagnostic and interventional angiographic procedures via a common femoral arterial access. The ExoSeal VCD was used at the puncture site to achieve hemostasis in 125 patients. We evaluated the technical and procedural success rates, the complications, and the factors affecting the hemostasis time of the ExoSeal VCDs.

RESULTS

Technical and procedural successes were achieved in 176 cases (98.0%) and 128 cases (71.5%), respectively. Device failure occurred in 3 (1.7%) cases. In 1 case (0.6%) a small hematoma developed, but there were no major complications. Among the hemostasis-relevant variables, a history of drinking alcohol, low platelet (PLT) count, and high prothrombin time-international normalized ratio (commonly known as PT-INR) values were the statistically significant predictors of the need for longer manual compression (MC). There was no difference in the success rates between the repeat and single ExoSeal procedure groups, and repeated use of the ExoSeal did not affect hemostasis time.

CONCLUSION

The ExoSeal VCD effectively achieves hemostasis, with few complications. Longer light MC may be needed with alcohol drinkers, low PLT count, and high PT-INR values.

Radial access protects from contrast media induced nephropathy after cardiac catheterization procedures

OBJECTIVES

To assess, whether cardiac catheterization via radial access prevents contrast-induced nephropathy.

BACKGROUND

Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a major clinical problem which accounts for more than 10% of acute kidney injury cases in hospitalized patients. Protective measures such as the infusion of isotonic saline solution or acetylcysteine have not consistently been proven to prevent acute kidney injury (AKI). However, there is growing evidence that radial access for coronary angiography and coronary intervention is associated with a lower incidence of AKI compared to femoral access.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a retrospective monocentric analysis, 2937 patients that had undergone cardiac catheterization were examined. Up to 2013, coronary intervention was performed primarily via the femoral artery in our hospital; thereafter, interventions were primarily done via the radial artery. In the cohort under study, 1141 patients had received catheterization using the radial access while 1796 were examined via the femoral artery. No significant differences were found in the two groups regarding the amount of iodinated contrast medium applied [femoral group: 180 (120-260) ml; radial group: 180 (120-250) ml; P = 0.438]. A total of 400 (13.6%) patients developed acute kidney injury (AKI) after cardiac catheterization (85.3% AKI stage 1; 12.8% AKI stage 2; 2% AKI stage 3). AKI was significantly less frequent in patients that had received radial access compared to patients with femoral access (10.1 vs. 15.9%, P < 0.001). Multivariate regression analysis showed that patient age (1.03/year; 95% CI 1.02-1.04/year; P < 0.001), the amount of contrast media applied (OR 1.003/ml; 95% CI 1.002-1.004/ml; P < 0.001), acute coronary syndrome (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.52-2.66; P < 0.001), CKD (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.50-1.70; P < 0.001), pre-existing heart failure (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00-1.42 P = 0.007), previous myocardial infarction (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.15-1.49; P = 0.001), diabetes (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.04-1.41; P = 0.020) and serum creatinine before the procedure (1.45/mg/dl; 95% CI 1.24-1.69/mg/dl; P < 0.001) were important risk factors for the occurrence of AKI. Our analysis points to a significant risk reduction using radial access (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.51-0.83; P < 0.001). Interestingly, this reduction in risk was also evident in patients with CKD (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.41-0.87; P = 0.007). The superiority of radial access was particularly obvious in the subgroup of patients with acute coronary syndrome (13.1% AKI in the radial access group vs. 23.6% AKI in the femoral access group, OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.34-0.81; P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that cardiac catheterization using radial access bears significantly lower risk of AKI than cardiac catheterization via femoral access. The advantage of radial access in acute coronary syndrome regarding morbidity and mortality could partly be explained by the here demonstrated reduced risk for AKI. Thus, radial access should be preferred in patients at risk for AKI.