MANTA Versus Suture-based Closure Devices Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-analysis

Vascular Complications in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Plug-Based vs Suture-Based Closure Devices

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting data regarding the efficacy and safety of suture vs plug-based vascular closure devices (VCDs) for large-bore catheter management in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We compared the rates of vascular complications (VCs) associated with 2 commonly used VCDs in a large cohort of patients undergoing TAVR.

METHODS

We conducted a single-centre, all-comer, prospective registry study, enrolling patients undergoing TAVR for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) between the years 2009 and 2022. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients undergoing closure of the femoral access point using the MANTA VCD (M-VCD) (Teleflex, Wayne, PA) vs the ProGlide VCD (P-VCD) (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, IL). The main outcome measures were researcher adjudicated events of VARC-2 defined major and minor VCs.

RESULTS

Overall, 2368 patients were enrolled in the registry; 1315 (51.0% male, 81.0 ± 7.0 years) patients were included in the current analysis. P-VCD was used in 813 patients, whereas M-VCD was used in 502 patients. In-hospital VCs were more frequent in the M-VCD vs the P-VCD group (17.3% vs 9.8%; P < 0.001). This outcome was mainly driven by elevated rates of minor VCs in the M-VCD group, whereas no significant difference was observed for major VCs (15.1% vs 8.4%; P < 0.001 and 2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.33, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing TAVR for severe AS, M-VCD was associated with higher rates of VCs. This outcome was mainly driven by minor VCs. The rate of major VCs was low in both groups.

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.