Selection of Vascular Closure Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Remote ischaemic preconditioning for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

INTRODUCTION

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become an important treatment in patients with aortic valve disease with the continuous advancement of technology and the improvement of outcomes. However, TAVR-related complications still increase patient morbidity and mortality. Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a simple procedure that provides perioperative protection for many vital organs. However, the efficiency of RIPC on TAVR remains unclear based on inconsistent conclusions from different clinical studies. Therefore, we will perform a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the efficiency of RIPC on TAVR.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library), Chinese electronic databases (Wanfang Database, VIP Database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and trial registry databases will be searched from inception to December 2023 to identify randomised controlled trials of RIPC on TAVR. We will calculate mean differences or standardised mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data, and the risk ratio (RR) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data by Review Manager version 5.4. Fixed-effects model or random-effects model will be used according to the degree of statistical heterogeneity assessed by the I-square test. We will evaluate the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2 and assess the evidence quality of each outcome by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The robustness of outcomes will be evaluated by trial sequential analysis. In addition, we will evaluate the publication bias of outcomes by Funnel plots and Egger's regression test.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was not required for this systematic review protocol. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023462926.

Comparison of plug-based versus suture-based vascular closure for large-bore arterial access: a collaborative meta-analysis of observational and randomized studies

BACKGROUND

Large-bore arteriotomies can be percutaneously closed with suture-based or plug-based vascular closure device (VCD) strategies. The efficacy of both techniques remains controversial.

AIMS

We conducted a meta-analysis of comparative studies between both VCD strategies, focusing on the most commonly applied VCDs (MANTA and ProGlide).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google scholar for observational studies (OS) and randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing vascular closure with the MANTA-based and the ProGlide-based technique. The principal endpoint of this analysis was access-site related vascular complications. Both study types were analyzed separately.

RESULTS

Access-site related vascular complications were less frequent after vascular closure with the MANTA technique in the analysis of OS (RR 0.61 [95%CI 0.43-0.89], p = 0.01, I² = 0%), but more frequent in the analysis of RCT data (RR 1.70 [95%CI 1.16-2.51], p = 0.01, I² = 0%). Both data sets provided no significant difference between the VCD techniques in terms of overall bleeding events (OS: RR 0.57 [95%CI 0.32-1.02], p = 0.06, I² = 70%; and RCT: RR 1.37 [95%CI 0.82-2.28], p = 0.23, I² = 30%). RCT data showed that endovascular stenting or vascular surgery due to VCD failure occurred more often after MANTA application (RR 3.53 [95%CI 1.07-11.33], p = 0.04, I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

While OS point to favorable outcomes for large-bore vascular closure with the MANTA-based technique, RCT data show that this strategy is associated with more access-site related vascular complications as well as endovascular stenting or vascular surgery due to device failure compared with the ProGlide-based technique.

Strategies for Reducing Vascular and Bleeding Risk for Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device-supported High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

In patients at high risk for haemodynamic instability during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), practitioners are increasingly opting for prophylactic mechanical circulatory support, such as the Impella® heart pump (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA). Though Impella-supported high-risk PCI (HRPCI) ensures haemodynamic stability during the PCI procedure, access-related complication rates have varied significantly in published studies. Reported variability in complication rates relates to many factors, including anticoagulation practices, access and closure strategy, post-procedure care and variations in event definitions. This article aims to outline optimal strategies to minimize vascular and bleeding complications during Impella-supported HRPCI based on previously identified clinical, procedural and postprocedural risk factors. Practices to reduce complications include femoral skills training, standardized protocols to optimize access, closure, anticoagulation management and post-procedural care, as well as the application of techniques and technological advances. Protocols integrating these strategies to mitigate access-related bleeding and vascular complications for Impella-supported procedures can markedly limit vascular access risk as a barrier to appropriate large-bore mechanical circulatory support use in HRPCI.