Single versus double use of a suture-based closure device for transfemoral aortic valve implantation

Cross-Seal IDE Trial: Prospective, Multicenter, Single-Arm Study of the Cross-Seal Suture-Mediated Vascular Closure Device System

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of interventional procedures require large-sheath technology (>12F) with a favorable outcome with endovascular rather than open surgical access. However, vascular complications are a limitation for the management of these patients. This trial aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of the Cross-Seal suture-mediated vascular closure device in obtaining hemostasis at the target limb access site following interventional procedures using 8F to 18F procedural sheaths.

METHODS

The Cross-Seal IDE trial (Investigational Device Exemption) was a prospective, single-arm, multicenter study in subjects undergoing percutaneous endovascular procedures utilizing 8F to 18F ID procedural sheaths. The primary efficacy end point was time to hemostasis at the target limb access site. The primary safety end point was freedom from major complications of the target limb access site within 30 days post procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 147 subjects were enrolled between August 9, 2019, and March 12, 2020. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was performed in 53.7% (79/147) and percutaneous endovascular abdominal/thoracic aortic aneurysm repair in 46.3% (68/147) of subjects. The mean sheath ID was 15.5±1.8 mm. The primary effectiveness end point of time to hemostasis was 0.4±1.4 minutes. An adjunctive intervention was required in 9.2% (13/142) of subjects, of which 2.1% (3/142) were surgical and 5.6% (8/142) endovascular. Technical success was achieved in 92.3% (131/142) of subjects. Freedom from major complications of the target limb access site was 94.3% (83/88).

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients undergoing percutaneous endovascular procedures utilizing 8F to 18F ID procedural sheath, Cross-Seal suture-mediated vascular closure device achieved favorable effectiveness and safety in the closure of the large-bore arteriotomy.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03756558.

Vascular Complications Among Patients Undergoing Trans-femoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Prostar vs ProGlide Parallel Technique

Reliable femoral artery closure devices are essential for the success of trans-femoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) procedures. Accordingly, device choice might affect vascular complications and bleeding rates. This was a retrospective analysis, comparing vascular complication rates among patients who underwent trans-femoral TAVI with vascular access closure using either the ProGlide parallel suture or Prostar closure devices. We included 191 patients: 106 were treated with Prostar and 85 with ProGlide. The ProGlide group had higher rate of diabetes, chronic kidney disease, peripheral arterial disease, and significantly smaller femoral arteries that were treated via larger sheaths. Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 major complications were similar between the groups. (4.7% for ProGlide vs 3.8% for Prostar, P=1), with similar incidence of closure device failure (2 vs 3, P=1). No differences were found after univariant analysis and propensity-score matching in the incidence of major and minor bleeding nor in the rate of in-hospital mortality between ProGlide and Prostar (4.7 vs 2.8%, P=.7, 1.2 vs 2.8%, P=.63, and 1.2 vs .0%, P=.45, respectively). Parallel suture technique using two ProGlide sutures showed comparable rates of vascular complications to the Prostar closure device in higher risk population of TAVI patients.