Angio-Seal in Antegrade Endovascular Interventions: Technical Success and Complications in a 55-Patient Series

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.

Safety and Efficacy of Arterial Closure Devices Following Antegrade Femoral Access: A Case–Control Study

Purpose:

Vascular closure device (VCD) use following antegrade femoral access may present unique challenges relative to retrograde access. We retrospectively compared safety and efficacy of these devices between antegrade and retrograde patient cohorts undergoing percutaneous intervention.

Materials and Methods:

Over a 5-year period, a consecutive series of 107 limbs in 84 patients underwent VCD arteriotomy closure following percutaneous revascularization using an antegrade approach (VCD-A). Device deployment success rates, time to ambulation, and complication rates were compared to a contemporaneous control group of 401 limbs in 305 patients who underwent closure following retrograde access (VCD-R) during revascularization or embolization procedures.

Results:

Closure was attempted in VCD-A using 53 StarClose, 35 Perclose, and 19 Angio-Seal devices. Hemostasis (without supplemental manual compression) was achieved in 86/107 (80.4%) limbs. Closure was attempted in VCD-R using 215 StarClose, 119 Perclose, and 67 Angio-Seal devices with hemostasis in 357/401 (89.0%) limbs. Device deployment failure occurred in 7/107 (6.5%) of VCD-A and 20/401 (5.0%) of VCD-R ( P = .52), independent of specific device type. Femoral pseudoaneurysm developed in 1/107 and 1/401 of VCD-A and VCD-R ( P = .31), and minor hematoma developed in 3/107 and 8/401 of the VCD-A and VCD-R ( P = .61). Mean time to ambulation was 204.1 minutes in VCD-A and 204.8 minutes in VCD-R ( P = .97).

Conclusion:

Antegrade femoral closure was associated with high rates of technical success and low complications, similar to retrograde closure. Time to ambulation was the same in both groups despite higher heparin doses in the antegrade patients.

Multicenter Safety and Efficacy Analysis of Assisted Closure after Antegrade Arterial Punctures Using the StarClose Device

Purpose:

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the StarClose device for closure of antegrade punctures following infrainguinal endovascular interventions.

Methods:

A retrospective review was conducted of 221 consecutive patients treated with the StarClose device in a 12-month period at 5 centers (4 French and 1 British). Of these, 107 patients (69 men; median age 75 years, range 44–93) were from the UK cohort (111 closures), and 94 patients (75 men; median age 67 years, range 32–95) were from the French cohort (111 closures). Technical success, complication rates, demographic data, medical history, and procedural details were gathered for all patients. Residual bleeding and the requirement for additional manual compression were recorded when the device failed. Clinical evaluation was performed at discharge; color-coded duplex ultrasonography was done in a subset of French patients.

Results:

The overall technical success rate was 94.6% (210/222; 95% CI 3.1%–9.2%). The results were similar in the 2 cohorts: 95.5% (106/111; 95% CI 1.9%–10.1%) in the UK and 93.7% (104/111; 95% CI 3.1%–12.4%) in France. The 12 failures (5 UK and 7 France) were due to several mechanisms: device failure (n=5), obesity (n=1), groin scarring (n=2), and unexplained (n=4). In 2 failed cases, open surgical closure of the arteriotomy was performed because pressure hemostasis failed. Two pseudoaneurysms were observed: one after immediate failure was successfully treated by prolonged pressure; the other, after apparent success of the device, required surgical therapy. The incidence of serious vascular complication was 1.8% (4/222; 95% CI 0.7%–4.5%); 2 patients from each cohort.

Conclusion:

The StarClose device safely and effectively closes antegrade punctures after infrainguinal endovascular intervention, even in patients who would be considered to be at high risk for puncture-site bleeding. However, a randomized trial would be required to support any definitive recommendations.

Incidence, predictors, and treatment options of critical limb ischaemia after use of collagen plug-based vascular closure devices

AIMS

Limited data are available on the frequency and predictors of vascular closure device (VCD) failure with subsequent vascular complications. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, clinical characteristics, and treatment options in patients with critical limb ischaemia (CLI) after use of a collagen plug-based VCD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A high-volume, single-centre prospectively maintained database was retrospectively interrogated, and cases of collagen plug-based VCD-related CLI were identified between June 2006 and December 2013. CLI was defined as acute onset of rest pain after VCD application requiring endovascular or surgical treatment. Among 13,595 coronary procedures, 43 patients (0.3%) were identified with an Angio-Seal-related CLI. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, peripheral artery disease and renal insufficiency were identified as independent predictors for CLI after Angio-Seal application. Treatment was performed in 27 patients (63%) by surgery and in 16 patients (37%) with endovascular angioplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

CLI after use of a collagen plug-based VCD is rare. Peripheral artery disease was identified as an independent predictor of CLI. Interventional cardiologists should be aware of potentially high-risk patients and complications after use of a VCD to provide prompt and adequate therapy.

Exoseal for puncture site closure after antegrade procedures in peripheral arterial disease patients

PURPOSE

Exoseal is a vascular clo-sure device consisting of a plug applier and a bio-absorbent polyglycolic acid plug available in sizes 5 F, 6 F, and 7 F. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the Exoseal vascular closure device (Cordis Corporation, Bridgewater, New Jersey, USA) for puncture site closure after antegrade endovascular procedures in peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, a total of 168 consecutive patients who underwent an interventional procedure due to PAOD, were included. In each case, an antegrade peripheral endovascular procedure was performed via the common femoral artery using the Seldinger technique, and Exoseal 5 F, 6 F, or 7 F was used for access site closure. The primary endpoint was a technically successful application of Exoseal. All complications at the access site within 24 hours were registered as a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

In a group of 168 patients (64.9% men, average age 71.9±11.9 years), the technical application of Exoseal was successful in 166 patients (98.8%). Within the first 24 hours after the procedure, 12 complications (7.2%) were recorded including, three pseudoaneurysms (1.8%) and nine hematomas (5.4%). None of the complications required surgical intervention.

CONCLUSION

Exoseal is a safe and effective device with high technical success and acceptable complication rates for access site closure after antegrade peripheral endovascular procedures.

Access and hemostasis: femoral and popliteal approaches and closure devices-why, what, when, and how?

This article reviews the arterial access sites used in the treatment of peripheral arterial disease, including common femoral, superficial femoral, and popliteal arterial puncture. The optimal approach and techniques for arterial puncture will be described and technical tips and tricks will be discussed. An overview of the currently available vascular closure devices will also be presented. Indications, contraindications, and complications will be discussed. Results of the use of vascular closure devices compared with manual compression will be presented.

Basic data underlying clinical decision making in vascular surgery: arterial access for percutaneous procedures

Percutaneous arterial access has become a mainstay in the armamentarium of vascular specialists. Vascular surgeons for decades have managed iatrogenic complications sustained by other specialists and now are more frequently performing catheter-based procedures themselves. A thorough understanding of the basic data underlying complications related to these procedures is imperative and is thoroughly reviewed.

Suitability of Exoseal vascular closure device for antegrade femoral artery puncture site closure

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of the Exoseal vascular closure device for antegrade puncture of the femoral artery.

METHODS

In a prospective study from February 2011 to January 2012, a total of 93 consecutive patients received a total of 100 interventional procedures via an antegrade puncture of the femoral artery. An Exoseal vascular closure device (6F) was used for closure in all cases. Puncture technique, duration of manual compression, and use of compression bandages were documented. All patients were monitored by vascular ultrasound and color-coded duplex sonography of their respective femoral artery puncture site within 12 to 36 h after angiography to check for vascular complications.

RESULTS

In 100 antegrade interventional procedures, the Exoseal vascular closure device was applied successfully for closure of the femoral artery puncture site in 96 cases (96 of 100, 96.0 %). The vascular closure device could not be deployed in one case as a result of kinking of the vascular sheath introducer and in three cases because the bioabsorbable plug was not properly delivered to the extravascular space adjacent to the arterial puncture site, but instead fully removed with the delivery system (4.0 %). Twelve to 36 h after the procedure, vascular ultrasound revealed no complications at the femoral artery puncture site in 93 cases (93.0 %). Minor vascular complications were found in seven cases (7.0 %), with four cases (4.0 %) of pseudoaneurysm and three cases (3.0 %) of significant late bleeding, none of which required surgery.

CONCLUSION

The Exoseal vascular closure device was safely used for antegrade puncture of the femoral artery, with a high rate of procedural success (96.0 %), a low rate of minor vascular complications (7.0 %), and no major adverse events.

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.