Angio-Seal use in patients with peripheral arterial disease (ASPIRE)

Complication rates associated with antegrade use of vascular closure devices: a systematic review and pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

Vascular closure devices (VCDs) have become a mainstay in endovascular interventions in recent years. On-label use only allows for retrograde interventions originating at the common femoral artery (CFA). However, off-label use in antegrade and/or superficial femoral artery (SFA) access has become more common in the treatment of peripheral arterial disease. Despite this, there is a paucity of comparative literature assessing individual VCD safety profiles and relative complication risks of CFA vs SFA applications.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE systematic searches were performed from inception to October 2019 to identify studies assessing VCD use in antegrade CFA and SFA interventions. Abstract selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Primary outcomes included bleeding-related complications, vessel occlusion or stenosis, embolization, pseudoaneurysm formation, or arteriovenous fistula formation.

RESULTS

Twenty-four unique studies with 4124 vascular closure events via six unique VCDs were included (Angioseal, Exoseal, Femoseal, Glubran 2, Mynx, Starclose; 3698 CFA, 426 SFA). Pooled occurrence of all complications across closure devices used in the CFA and SFA ranged from 0.9% (Mynx) to 7.4% (Starclose) and 0% (Perclose) to 10.1% (Starclose), respectively, depending on VCD type. Clinically meaningful differences were identified between devices with a trend toward significance (P = .08 CFA, P = .07 SFA). Individual devices demonstrated a range of bleeding complication rates from 0.4% (Mynx) to 7.2% (Femoseal) for the CFA site and from 0% (Perclose) to 6.4% (Starclose) for the SFA site (P = .01 and P = .03, respectively). Significant heterogeneity between studies precludes definitive characterization of the device as cause for variations in bleeding complication rates. Pooled complication rates did not differ between the CFA and SFA arms (4.6% vs 5.8%, P = .56). Bleeding complication rates also did not differ between the CFA and SFA arms (3.6% vs 3.6%, P = .98).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically meaningful differences in overall pooled complications were identified between VCDs with a trend toward significance. Significant differences between VCDs exist with respect to bleeding risk. However, this must be interpreted with caution as these differences could be secondary to interstudy heterogeneity. Finally, no difference was identified between antegrade SFA and CFA VCD use with respect to overall complication and bleeding risks.

Closure of large bore 9 F arterial puncture sites with the AngioSeal STS device in acute stroke patients after intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA)

Purpose

This retrospective analysis was performed to evaluate whether large bore 9 F puncture sites can be safely closed with the 8 F AngioSeal STS device after endovascular stroke procedures in patients who did or did not receive recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA).

Methods

Out of 161 consecutive endovascular stroke procedures we identified 72 patients who met the inclusion criteria, of whom 46 received rt-PA before the endovascular procedure and 26 did not. All groin complications such as major haemorrhage, failure of the device to close the puncture site, delayed haemorrhage, acute lower extremity ischaemia or necessary vascular surgery as well as infections were recorded.

Results

Only one patient had delayed groin haemorrhage after closure of the 9 F puncture site with the AngioSeal STS device. There was no significant difference in complications between patients with or without rt-PA treatment.

Conclusion

The 8 F AngioSeal STS seems to be safe and efficient to close 9 F femoral artery puncture sites, even under active rt-PA thrombolysis.

Kinematics of the Reach-to-Grasp Movement in Vascular Parkinsonism: A Comparison with Idiopathic Parkinson's Disease Patients

The performance of patients with vascular parkinsonism (VPD) on a reach-to-grasp task was compared with that of patients affected by idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (IPD) and age-matched control subjects. The aim of the study was to determine how patients with VPD and IPD compare at the level of the kinematic organization of prehensile actions. We examined how subjects concurrently executed the transport and grasp components of reach-to-grasp movements when grasping differently sized objects. When comparing both VPD and IPD groups to control subjects, all patients showed longer movement duration and smaller hand opening, reflecting bradykinesia and hypometria, respectively. Furthermore, for all patients, the onset of the manipulation component was delayed with respect to the onset of the transport component. However, for patients with VPD this delay was significantly smaller than that found for the IPD group. It is proposed that this reflects a deficit – which is moderate for VPD as compared to IPD patients – in the simultaneous (or sequential) implementation of different segments of a complex movement. Altogether these findings suggest that kinematic analysis of reach-to-grasp movement has the ability to provide potential instruments to characterize different forms of parkinsonism.

CIRSE vascular closure device registry

PURPOSE

Vascular closure devices are routinely used after many vascular interventional radiology procedures. However, there have been no major multicenter studies to assess the safety and effectiveness of the routine use of closure devices in interventional radiology.

METHODS

The CIRSE registry of closure devices with an anchor and a plug started in January 2009 and ended in August 2009. A total of 1,107 patients were included in the registry.

RESULTS

Deployment success was 97.2%. Deployment failure specified to access type was 8.8% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 5.0-14.5] for antegrade access and 1.8% (95% CI 1.1-2.9) for retrograde access (P = 0.001). There was no difference in deployment failure related to local PVD at the access site. Calcification was a reason for deployment failure in only <0.5% of patients. Postdeployment bleeding occurred in 6.4%, and most these (51.5%) could be managed with light manual compression. During follow-up, other device-related complications were reported in 1.3%: seven false aneurysms, three hematoma >5.9 cm, and two vessel occlusions.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion of this registry of closure devices with an anchor and a plug is that the use of this device in interventional radiology procedures is safe, with a low incidence of serious access site complications. There seems to be no difference in complications between antegrade and retrograde access and other parameters.