Safety and efficacy of using vascular closure devices for hemostasis on sheath removal after a transfemoral artery percutaneous coronary intervention

Vascular Closure Devices versus Manual Compression in Cardiac Interventional Procedures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Backgrounds

Manual compression (MC) and vascular closure device (VCD) are two methods of vascular access site hemostasis after cardiac interventional procedures. However, there is still controversial over the use of them and a lack of comprehensive and systematic meta-analysis on this issue.

Methods

Original articles comparing VCD and MC in cardiac interventional procedures were searched in PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science through April 2022. Efficacy, safety, patient satisfaction, and other parameters were assessed between two groups. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated by I² index and the Cochran Q test, respectively. Publication bias was assessed using the funnel plot and Egger's test.

Results

A total of 32 studies were included after screening with inclusion and exclusion criteria (33481 patients). This meta-analysis found that VCD resulted in shorter time to hemostasis, ambulation, and discharge (p < 0.00001). In terms of vascular complication risks, VCD group might be associated with a lower risk of major complications (p = 0.0001), but the analysis limited to randomized controlled trials did not support this result (p = 0.68). There was no significant difference in total complication rates (p = 0.08) and bleeding-related complication rates (p = 0.05) between the two groups. Patient satisfaction was higher in VCD group (p = 0.002). Meta-regression analysis revealed no specific covariate as an influencing factor for above results (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Compared with MC, the use of VCDs significantly shortens the time of hemostasis and allows earlier ambulation and discharge, meanwhile without increase in vascular complications. In addition, use of VCDs achieves higher patient satisfaction and leads cost savings for patients and institutions.

Music Interventions in Percutaneous Coronary Procedures: A Meta-Analysis

To clarify the effectiveness of music intervention for improving the well-being of patients undergoing coronary procedures for coronary heart disease, we conducted full-text searches of various databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ProQuest, and Airiti Library; 1966-2019) to identify randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies of music intervention in recipients of angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome measures included anxiety, discomfort, pain, heart rate, and blood pressure. The Cochrane methodology, Jadad Quality Score, and ROBINS-I were employed to evaluate evidence from 10 studies. Music intervention reduced anxiety (effect size: Z = 2.15, p = .03; six studies) and discomfort of lying (Z = 2.40, p = .02; two studies), but did not affect pain (Z = 0.94; two studies), heart rate (Z = 0.94; five studies), or blood pressure (systolic, Z = 1.27; diastolic, Z = 1.32; four studies) (all p > .05). The heterogeneity among studies was high. Large-scale, transcultural, high-quality trials are warranted to confirm the benefit of music intervention in patients undergoing coronary procedures.

A Retrospective Study Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety of EXOSEAL Vascular Closure Device to Manual Compression in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Transbrachial Procedures

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of EXOSEAL vascular closure device (EVCD) insertion by comparing its performance with manual compression (MC) in achieving hemostasis at the brachial artery puncture site.

METHODS

A retrospective study of brachial artery access by using either MC or EVCD for achieving hemostasis from March 2016 to October 2017 was conducted. Patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD) undergoing percutaneous transbrachial procedures were included. Time to hemostasis (TTH) was the primary efficacy end point. Seven-day incidence of major access site-related complications was the primary safety end point. TTH and major and minor complications associated with treatment of these 2 groups were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients with TBAD undergoing percutaneous transbrachial procedures entered the analysis. Of these, 107 patients underwent EVCD insertion and 50 patients underwent MC. The baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were similar. TTH was significantly shorter for EVCD over MC (P < 0.05). The TTH ≥10 min in the MC group was 100.0% (n = 50), but in the EVCD group, it was ≤2 min, 87.9% (n = 107); 2-5 min, 7.5% (n = 107); and ≥10 min, 4.7% (n = 107). The EVCD group had several major complications, while the MC group had none. Two patients (1.9%, n = 107) required vascular repair, one patient (0.6%, n = 107) required blood transfusion, and 1 patient (0.6%, n = 107) developed upper limb numbness and weakness after EVCD deployment. Minor complication such as the occurrence of hematoma (≤5 cm) in the MC group was 4 (8.0%) but was also 4 (3.7%) in the EVCD group, showing statistically significant difference (P = 0.030). The incidence of ecchymosis was 8 (7.5%) in the EVCD group when compared with 13 (26.0%) in the MC group, which showed statistically significant difference (P = 0.001). Other major and minor complications showed no significant differences between these 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

After invasive procedures by 6F percutaneous access via the brachial artery in preprocedurally fully anticoagulated patients, TTH was significantly reduced in patients who underwent EVCD when compared with patients who underwent MC. MC is a safer and more convenient way to achieve hemostasis but has higher incidence of minor complications.