Single-Center Experience Comparing the Application of Small-Caliber versus Large-Caliber Arterial Access Closure in a Consecutive Series of Patients

Off-Label Use of the 8-F Angio-Seal for Closure of Greater than 8-F Common Femoral Arterial Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety of >8-F access closures using 8-F Angio-Seal.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines using Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and PubMed databases from inception until January 17, 2022. Actionable and nonactionable bleeding events were defined in conjugation with the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definition. Prevalence rates with corresponding 95% CIs were calculated using R software version 4.2.2. Eight articles, with 422 patients, were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

The overall groin adverse event rate was 5.92% (95% CI, 3.01-11.34). The most commonly reported adverse events were any bleeding (5.74%; 95% CI, 3.23-10.00) (nonactionable bleeding, 0.96% [95% CI, 0.10-8.30]; actionable bleeding, 2.30% [95% CI, 0.89-5.84]), pseudoaneurysm (1.18%; 95% CI, 0.49-2.81), and groin hematoma (1.28%; 95% CI, 0.23-6.79). The least commonly reported adverse events were device failure and vessel occlusion/stenosis, with rates 0.29% (95% CI, 0.01-7.41) and 0.45% (95% CI, 0.02-7.74), respectively. No studies recorded events regarding the following adverse events: mortality, infection, deep venous thrombosis, and retroperitoneal hematoma. Moreover, the results showed significant differences, based on the sheath size used, in actionable bleeding (P = .04) and the rate of need for surgical repair (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Common femoral artery access of >8-F can be effectively closed with the Angio-Seal with comparable outcomes to those of <8 F; however, larger access approaching 14 F is associated with a significant increase in morbidity. Further safety is needed, especially for the larger access sizes.

Use of 8Fr angio-seal for closure of femoral arteriotomy following use of 8Fr and 9Fr sheaths in patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the safety of off-label use of an 8Fr Angio-Seal VIP for large-bore arteriotomies in patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for acute ischaemic stroke (AIS). We aimed to identify differences in the groin complication rate using an 8Fr Angio-Seal VIP for common femoral arteriotomy closures following the use of 8Fr and 9Fr sheaths.

METHODS

All AIS patients who underwent MT at our tertiary neuroscience unit between January 2018 and March 2020 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

161 patients were included in the study, of whom 56 and 105 patients underwent an arteriotomy using an 8Fr sheath (36 of them receiving IVT) and a 9Fr sheath (57 of them receiving IVT). Overall, 17 groin complications were identified (10.5%) in 5 patients (8.9%) who had had 8Fr sheaths inserted and 12 patients (11.4%) who had had 9Fr sheaths inserted. Major complications were identified in only 2 patients (1.2%), one patient in each of the 8Fr and 9Fr cohorts suffering a pseudoaneurysm requiring intervention. No retroperitoneal haematoma, infection, acute limb ischaemia or ipsilateral DVT was identified. No significant difference in groin complications was observed between the 8Fr and 9Fr femoral arteriotomy cohorts or between the MT patients that did or did not receive adjunctive IVT.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of MT with IVT, off-label use of an 8Fr Angio-Seal VIP for closure of a femoral arteriotomy following use of a 9Fr sheath has a similar safety profile to the licensed use of an 8Fr Angio-Seal VIP for closure of a femoral arteriotomy following use of an 8Fr sheath or smaller.

Single Angio-Seal vascular closure device for transfemoral access exceeding 8F

BACKGROUND

This was a retrospective single-center evaluation for off-label use of a single Angio-Seal-VIP 8F vascular closure device (VCD) (Terumo Interventional Systems, Somerset, NJ, USA) for retrograde transfemoral arterial access exceeding 8F.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2018, in 32 consecutive patients (3 females; mean age 67±9; range 46-86 years) retrograde femoral access was performed in 48 groins for aortoiliac stent or stent graft implantations using 9-14F sheaths. For vascular closure, one single Angio-Seal™-VIP 8F was used. Procedural success, closure-related complications, and risk factors were retrospectively evaluated using patient characteristics, duplex-ultrasound, and contrast-enhanced computed tomography angiography (CTA). Receiver-operating-characteristics were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Technical success for deployment of VCD was 100%. Visual inspection and duplex-ultrasound confirmed immediate hemostasis in 100%. Postinterventional CTA depicted major vascular access site complications in 6.3% (3/48 groins) requiring surgical treatment. A subgroup of 13 patients underwent surgical cut-down one day after VCD deployment as part of a two-staged complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair procedure, allowing for visual assessment of prior used undersized Angio-Seal^TM. Patient's height (p=0.028) and severe access site calcifications (p=0.028) proved as predictors for one vessel occlusion and two pseudoaneurysms. Low body-mass-index (BMI) showed a non-significant trend. Sheath-size, common femoral artery depth, or body weight were not indicative for occurrence of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected cases, without availability of appropriate VCDs, a single Angio-Seal^TM-VIP 8F served as a feasible option to achieve sufficient hemostasis of transfemoral access exceeding 8F without relevant bleeding complications. Very low BMI, tall body-height, and severe atherosclerosis were identified to predispose to access site complications.

Are complication rates lower with 4-Fr versus 6-Fr transfemoral arterial access - prospective audit at a single interventional radiology centre

Background

Femoral arterial access constitutes the first step in a significant proportion of interventional endovascular procedures. Whilst existing reports describe sheath size as an independent risk factor for bleeding complications in radial arterial access for coronary intervention, the influence of sheath size on overall complication rates and morbidity following femoral arterial access is not well described. This prospective single centre study reports our experience of vascular sheath size, patient and procedural factors in influencing complication rates following femoral arterial access. From April 2010 to May 2013, data was collected prospectively for all femoral arterial access procedures performed in the Interventional Radiology department of a tertiary hospital. For vascular sheath size <6-Fr, haemostasis was achieved by manual compression. For 6-Fr sheath size, a closure device was used in the absence of any contraindication.

Results

Of the 320 femoral access cases with eligible inclusion criteria, 52.5% had 4-Fr whilst 47.5% had 6-Fr vascular sheaths inserted. Overall post procedure complications rates were significantly higher following 6-Fr sheath (17/152 (11.2%)) versus 4-Fr systems (3/168 (1.8%)) (p=0.0007) mostly comprising self-limiting hematoma. There was no significant difference in major complications that required escalation of treatment.

Conclusion

No significant difference has been demonstrated between the use of either sheath systems for major complications. The practical limitations of a smaller system, combined with existing body of evidence, may not justify the routine use of 4-Fr sheath systems as the primary sheath size for all endovascular procedures.