Venous Access Site Closures Using the VASCADE Vascular Closure System

Results from the prospective, multicenter AMBULATE-CAP trial: Reduced use of urinary catheters and protamine with hemostasis via the Mid-Bore Venous Vascular Closure System (VASCADE® MVP) following multi-access cardiac ablation procedures

INTRODUCTION

Manual compression (MC), historically the most common method to achieve hemostasis after percutaneous vascular procedures, is time consuming, requires prolonged bedrest, and is uncomfortable for patients and clinicians. Recent studies demonstrate the efficacy and safety of vascular closure devices and suggest shorter times to hemostasis and patient ambulation compared with MC. The current study evaluated the feasibility of the VASCADE® venous vascular closure system (VVCS) while allowing for urinary catheter (UC) elimination, and elimination of protamine and/or same calendar day discharge (SCDD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this prospective, multicenter trial, patients were enrolled and assigned to the following groups: no UC, no protamine, and/or SCDD (no co-enrollment in no protamine and SCDD). After completing the catheter-based cardiac procedure, access sites were closed using the VVCS. Outcomes included final hemostasis (all sites) without major access site-related complications at 30 days, rates of access site closure-related complications, device success, and study group success. All 168 patients had hemostasis without major access site-related complications through 30 days. In the no UC group, 160 out of 164 (97.6%) patients did not receive a UC. Additionally, 39 out of 41 (95.1%) patients received heparin without protamine reversal and no access site bleeding-related ambulation delays, and 18 out of 18 (100%) patients were discharged on the same day. There were no major access site closure-related complications, few minor complications, and adverse events were generally mild and well managed.

CONCLUSION

The VVCS was effective for achieving hemostasis following catheter-based procedures; access site closure-related complications and adverse events were well managed.

2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias

Ventricular arrhythmias are an important cause of morbidity and mortality and come in a variety of forms, from single premature ventricular complexes to sustained ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. Rapid developments have taken place over the past decade in our understanding of these arrhythmias and in our ability to diagnose and treat them. The field of catheter ablation has progressed with the development of new methods and tools, and with the publication of large clinical trials. Therefore, global cardiac electrophysiology professional societies undertook to outline recommendations and best practices for these procedures in a document that will update and replace the 2009 EHRA/HRS Expert Consensus on Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmias. An expert writing group, after reviewing and discussing the literature, including a systematic review and meta-analysis published in conjunction with this document, and drawing on their own experience, drafted and voted on recommendations and summarized current knowledge and practice in the field. Each recommendation is presented in knowledge byte format and is accompanied by supportive text and references. Further sections provide a practical synopsis of the various techniques and of the specific ventricular arrhythmia sites and substrates encountered in the electrophysiology lab. The purpose of this document is to help electrophysiologists around the world to appropriately select patients for catheter ablation, to perform procedures in a safe and efficacious manner, and to provide follow-up and adjunctive care in order to obtain the best possible outcomes for patients with ventricular arrhythmias.

Venous access-site closure with vascular closure device vs. manual compression in patients undergoing catheter ablation or left atrial appendage occlusion under uninterrupted anticoagulation: a multicentre experience on efficacy and complications

AIMS

Manual compression (MC), widely used to achieve venous access haemostasis, needs prolonged immobilization and extended time-to-haemostasis. Vascular closure devices (VCD) have been reported to have significantly shorter time to haemostasis and ambulation in arterial access-site management. The current study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy as well as rate of urinary tract complications in patients receiving MC vs. VCD for venous access-site closure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 803 consecutive patients undergoing catheter ablation or left atrial appendage closure were classified into the VCD (n = 304) and the MC (n = 499) group, based on the methods used for haemostasis at the venous access site. Foley catheter was used for bladder-emptying in all MC cases and 15 VCD patients. At one site, VCD group patients with experience of MC in prior ablations were asked to describe their overall satisfaction level after comparing the past experience with the present. Haemostasis was achieved effectively in both populations. No VCD cases required >2 h bed rest, whereas 7 (1.4%) patients in the MC group needed prolonged immobilization (P = 0.04). Significantly higher incidence of access-site haematoma (P = 0.004) and urinary complications (P < 0.05) were observed in the MC group. Majority of VCD patients (68%) with prior experience of MC for haemostasis expressed satisfaction over the early ambulation and ability to void urine without bladder catheterization.

CONCLUSION

Vascular closure devices provided effective haemostasis, while reducing the access-site complications, ambulation time, and urinary complications.

2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias

Ventricular arrhythmias are an important cause of morbidity and mortality and come in a variety of forms, from single premature ventricular complexes to sustained ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. Rapid developments have taken place over the past decade in our understanding of these arrhythmias and in our ability to diagnose and treat them. The field of catheter ablation has progressed with the development of new methods and tools, and with the publication of large clinical trials. Therefore, global cardiac electrophysiology professional societies undertook to outline recommendations and best practices for these procedures in a document that will update and replace the 2009 EHRA/HRS Expert Consensus on Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmias. An expert writing group, after reviewing and discussing the literature, including a systematic review and meta-analysis published in conjunction with this document, and drawing on their own experience, drafted and voted on recommendations and summarized current knowledge and practice in the field. Each recommendation is presented in knowledge byte format and is accompanied by supportive text and references. Further sections provide a practical synopsis of the various techniques and of the specific ventricular arrhythmia sites and substrates encountered in the electrophysiology lab. The purpose of this document is to help electrophysiologists around the world to appropriately select patients for catheter ablation, to perform procedures in a safe and efficacious manner, and to provide follow-up and adjunctive care in order to obtain the best possible outcomes for patients with ventricular arrhythmias.

Venous Vascular Closure System Versus Manual Compression Following Multiple Access Electrophysiology Procedures: The AMBULATE Trial

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the efficacy and safety of the VASCADE MVP Venous Vascular Closure System (VVCS) device (Cardiva Medical, Santa Clara, California) to manual compression (MC) for closing multiple access sites after catheter-based electrophysiology procedures.

BACKGROUND

The VASCADE MVP VVCS is designed to provide earlier ambulatory hemostasis than MC after catheter-based procedures.

METHODS

The AMBULATE (A Randomized, Multi-center Trial to Compare Cardiva Mid-Bore [VASCADE MVP] VVCS to Manual Compression in Closure of Multiple Femoral Venous Access Sites in 6 - 12 Fr Sheath Sizes) trial was a multicenter, randomized trial of device closure versus MC in patients who underwent ablation. Outcomes included time to ambulation (TTA), total post-procedure time (TPPT), time to discharge eligibility (TTDe), time to hemostasis (TTH), 30-day major and minor complications, pain medication usage, and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 204 patients at 13 sites were randomized to the device arm (n = 100; 369 access sites) or the MC arm (n = 104; 382 access sites). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Mean TTA, TPPT, TTDe, and TTH were substantially lower in the device arm (respective decreases of 54%, 54%, 52%, and 55%; all p < 0.0001). Opioid use was reduced by 58% (p = 0.001). There were no major access site complications. Incidence of minor complications was 1.0% for the device arm and 2.4% for the MC arm (p = 0.45). Patient satisfaction scores with duration of and comfort during bedrest were 63% and 36% higher in device group (both p < 0.0001). Satisfaction with bedrest pain was 25% higher (p = 0.001) for the device overall, and 40% higher (p = 0.002) for patients with a previous ablation.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the closure device for multiple access ablation procedures resulted in significant reductions in TTA, TPPT, TTH, TTDe, and opioid use, with increased patient satisfaction and no increase in complications. (A Randomized, Multi-center Trial to Compare Cardiva Mid-Bore VVCS to Manual Compression in Closure of Multiple Femoral Venous Access Sites in 6 - 12 Fr Sheath Sizes [AMBULATE]; NCT03193021).

2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias

Ventricular arrhythmias are an important cause of morbidity and mortality and come in a variety of forms, from single premature ventricular complexes to sustained ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. Rapid developments have taken place over the past decade in our understanding of these arrhythmias and in our ability to diagnose and treat them. The field of catheter ablation has progressed with the development of new methods and tools, and with the publication of large clinical trials. Therefore, global cardiac electrophysiology professional societies undertook to outline recommendations and best practices for these procedures in a document that will update and replace the 2009 EHRA/HRS Expert Consensus on Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmias. An expert writing group, after reviewing and discussing the literature, including a systematic review and meta-analysis published in conjunction with this document, and drawing on their own experience, drafted and voted on recommendations and summarized current knowledge and practice in the field. Each recommendation is presented in knowledge byte format and is accompanied by supportive text and references. Further sections provide a practical synopsis of the various techniques and of the specific ventricular arrhythmia sites and substrates encountered in the electrophysiology lab. The purpose of this document is to help electrophysiologists around the world to appropriately select patients for catheter ablation, to perform procedures in a safe and efficacious manner, and to provide follow-up and adjunctive care in order to obtain the best possible outcomes for patients with ventricular arrhythmias.

Closure of mid-bore venotomies with VASCADE VCD after right and left heart catheterization

OBJECTIVE

This single-center, retrospective analysis investigated the clinical outcomes of a novel vascular closure device (VASCADE, Cardiva Medical, Santa Clara, CA) for closure of 7F femoral venotomies.

BACKGROUND

The VASCADE closure device has been widely used to close arteriotomy sites following femoral procedures; however, little data have been published regarding the device's utility in closure of venotomy sites after procedures such as right-heart catheterization.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of outcomes in 102 consecutive patients who underwent venous closure using the VASCADE device following diagnostic right and left-heart catheterization between April 2016 to May 2018. Patients' age, gender, valvular disease status, comorbidities, and periprocedural use of antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy were analyzed.

RESULTS

Closure was successful in 99% (101/102) of patients with respect to achieving the primary outcome of rapid hemostasis in ≤3 min. There was one device failure requiring manual compression, with no further complications. There were no other related adverse events or complications through 30 days of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The VASCADE device achieved venous hemostasis in nearly all our patients. We believe devices for venous closure can aid in improving patient experience, safety, and efficiency during these procedures.