Dual ProGlide versus ProGlide and FemoSeal for vascular access haemostasis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Dual ProGlide versus ProGlide and Angio-Seal for Femoral Access Hemostasis after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Randomized Comparative Trial

BACKGROUND

Vascular complications increase morbidity and mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacements(TAVR), often related to failures in vascular closure devices(VCD). We intended to compare the dual Perclose ProGlide(PP) strategy to the hybrid combination of PP and Angio-Seal(AS) for femoral access hemostasis after TAVR.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial with 257 patients comparing dual PP to one PP and one AS(AS+PP) for vascular closure after transfemoral TAVR was conducted. The primary endpoint was the composite of TAVR access site-related vascular complications and life-threatening type 2/3 or 1 bleeding according to VARC-3. Secondary endpoints included additional VCD use and significant peripheral ischemia related to arteriotomy closure within one year. Modified VCD failure, defined as failure to achieve hemostasis within 5 minutes or requiring additional endovascular maneuvers, was also recorded.

RESULTS

The AS+PP combination yielded lower rates of the primary endpoint(18.2% vs 29.8%; p = 0.0381), vascular complication(18.2% vs 29.8%; p = 0.0381), additional VCD usage(0.8% vs 19.0%; p < 0.0001), and modified VCD failure(9.9% vs 33.1%; p < 0.0001) than the dual PP. Bleeding complication rates were similar between the two groups. Three-month follow-up vascular duplex tests showed similar common femoral artery(CFA) diameters and peak systolic velocities(PSV) between the two groups, but additional intervention had higher PSV and smaller CFA diameters than those without.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined PP+AS for large-bore femoral access hemostasis following TAVR promises to be more effective and safer than dual PP in terms of vascular complications. Moreover, additional intervention for vascular complications resulted in smaller CFA diameters(ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05491070).

Femoral Large Bore Sheath Management: How to Prevent Vascular Complications From Vessel Puncture to Sheath Removal

Transfemoral access is nowadays required for an increasing number of percutaneous procedures, such as structural heart interventions, mechanical circulatory support, and interventional electrophysiology/pacing. Despite technological advancements and improved techniques, these devices necessitate large-bore (≥12 French) arterial/venous sheaths, posing a significant risk of bleeding and vascular complications, whose occurrence has been related to an increase in morbidity and mortality. Therefore, optimizing large-bore vascular access management is crucial in endovascular interventions. Technical options, including optimized preprocedural planning and proper selection and utilization of vascular closure devices, have been developed to increase safety. This review explores the comprehensive management of large-bore accesses, from optimal vascular puncture to sheath removal. It also discusses strategies for managing closure device failure, with the goal of minimizing vascular complications.

Feasibility of a modified hybrid glubran-supported single-proglide technique for access closure during endovascular aneurysm repair

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a hybrid Glubran-supported single-Proglide technique for large bore femoral access closure during percutaneous access endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed for all percutaneous EVARs at our center from January 2023 to June 2023. All patients received the hybrid Glubran-supported single-Proglide technique involving a mixture of surgical glue and Lipiodol injection after single suture placement for femoral access closure. Technical success was defined as achieving complete hemostasis without a bailout strategy. Vascular complications and bleeding were defined by Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) criteria. Vascular access changes and 30-day mortality were recorded.

Results

The technique success rate for the entire study population was 100% (55 femoral access in 37 patients; median age: 72; 78% males). The mean sheath size was 20.4 ± 2.3F. The mean manual compression time was 3.5 ± 1.4 min, the mean hemostasis time was 9.0 ± 2.5 min, and the mean procedural time was 103.9 ± 34.7 min. One patient (1.6%) developed an access site infection and recovered conservatively. No VARC-3 vascular complications and access changes were observed. No 30-day mortality happened.

Conclusions

The hybrid Glubran-supported single-Proglide technique is feasible for large bore access closure during EVAR and may be a viable alternative; however, larger prospective studies are required to confirm its efficacy.

Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a VARC-HBR consensus document

The identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are of major importance, but the lack of standardised definitions is challenging for trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Valve Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (VARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organisations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from Europe, the USA, and Asia, with a major focus on TAVI-related bleeding. VARC-HBR is an initiative of the CERC (Cardiovascular European Research Center), aiming to develop a consensus definition of TAVI patients at HBR, based on a systematic review of the available evidence, to provide consistency for future clinical trials, clinical decision-making, and regulatory review. This document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of HBR evaluating the safety and effectiveness of procedures, devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing TAVI..

Pacing Using Cardiac Implantable Electric Device During TAVR: 10-Year Experience of a High-Volume Center

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective and safe therapy for severe aortic stenosis. Rapid or fast pacing is required for implantation, which can be performed via a pre-existing cardiac implantable electric device (CIED). However, safety data on CIEDs for pacing in TAVR are missing.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to elucidate procedural safety and feasibility of internal pacing with a CIED in TAVR.

METHODS

Patients undergoing TAVR with a CIED were included in this analysis. Baseline characteristics, procedural details, and complications according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) criteria after TAVR were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 486 patients were included. Pacing was performed using a CIED in 150 patients and a transient pacemaker in 336 patients. No differences in technical success according to VARC-3 criteria or procedure duration occurred between the groups. The usage of transient pacers for pacing was associated with a significantly higher bleeding rate (bleeding type ≥2 according to VARC-3-criteria; 2.0% vs 13.1%; P < 0.01). Furthermore, impairment of the CIED appeared in 2.3% of patients after TAVR only in the group in which pacing was performed by a transient pacer, leading to surgical revision of the CIED in 1.3% of all patients when transient pacemakers were used.

CONCLUSIONS

Internal pacing using a CIED is safe and feasible without differences of procedural time and technical success and might reduce bleeding rates. Furthermore, pacing using a CIED circumvents the risk of lead dislocation. Our data provide an urgent call for the use of a CIED for pacing during a TAVR procedure in general.

A systematic algorithm for large-bore arterial access closure after TAVI: the TAVI-MultiCLOSE study

BACKGROUND

Despite transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) having become a routine procedure, access site bleeding and vascular complications are still a concern which contribute to procedure-related morbidity and mortality.

AIMS

The TAVI-MultiCLOSE study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of a new vascular closure algorithm for percutaneous large-bore arterial access closure following transfemoral (TF)-TAVI.

METHODS

All consecutive TF-TAVI cases in which the MultiCLOSE vascular closure algorithm was used were prospectively included in a multicentre, observational study. This stepwise algorithm entails the reinsertion of a 6-8 Fr sheath (primary access) following the initial preclosure with one or two suture-based vascular closure devices (VCDs). This provides the operator with the opportunity to perform a quick and easy angiographic control and tailor the final vascular closure with either an additional suture- or plug-based VCD, or neither of these.

RESULTS

Among 630 patients who underwent TF-TAVI utilising the MultiCLOSE algorithm, complete arterial haemostasis was achieved in 616 patients (98%). VCD failure occurred in 14 patients (2%), treated with either balloon inflation (N=1), covered stent (N=12) or surgical repair (N=1). Overall, this vascular closure approach resulted in a minor and major vascular complication rate of 2.2% and 0.6%, respectively. At 30 days, only one new minor vascular complication (0.2%) was noted. In-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality rates were 0.2% and 1.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the MultiCLOSE vascular closure algorithm was demonstrated to contribute to an easy, safe, efficacious and durable vascular closure after TF-TAVI, resulting in a major vascular complication rate of less than 1%.

A study of bailout plug-based closure after failed suture-based closure in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous suture-based arterial access site closure (ProGlide) is commonly applied in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, the failure of a suture-based vascular closure device (VCD) may require additional treatment.

AIMS

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bailout access site closure using a large-bore plug-based device (MANTA) in patients with failed suture-based closure during transfemoral TAVI.

METHODS

Patients undergoing a bailout attempt with the MANTA VCD were identified from a prospectively enrolling, institutional registry. Efficacy was defined as haemostasis at the access site without the need for alternative treatment other than manual compression or endovascular ballooning. Safety was defined as freedom from vascular dissection, stenosis and occlusion requiring intervention.

RESULTS

Of 2,505 patients, 66 underwent a bailout attempt with MANTA as a result of ProGlide failure, which occurred before the large-bore sheath insertion in 16.7% of patients and after the sheath removal in 83.3% of patients. Bailout MANTA was deemed effective in 75.8% of patients (50/66), and the technique was considered safe in 86.4% (57/66) of patients. Failure of bailout MANTA occurred because of its superficial application, resulting in persistent bleeding in 18.2% of patients (12/66), and because of its deep application, resulting in stenosis or occlusion in 6.1% of patients (4/66). Operator experience with the technique (odds ratio [OR] 12.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.99-75.99; p=0.007) and prior use of three ProGlides (OR 0.02, 95% CI: <0.01-0.39; p=0.010) were the only independent predictors of the efficacy endpoint.

CONCLUSIONS

Bailout MANTA after ProGlide failure was effective and safe, but operator experience seems to be crucial. Further technological refinements to facilitate accurate placement appear necessary.

Comparison of MANTA versus Perclose Prostyle large-bore vascular closure devices during transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

New vascular closure devices (VCD) are being introduced for achieving hemostasis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, no safety or efficacy data have been published compared to other contemporary VCD.

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy of suture-based Perclose Prostyle as compared to plug-based MANTA device.

METHODS

A total of 408 consecutive TAVI patients from two high volume TAVI centers were included in the present study. Patients were grouped according to VCD: Prostyle versus MANTA. Propensity score matching (PSM) and multivariable analysis were utilized to compare clinical endpoints between the two groups. The primary endpoint was any vascular complication (VC) according to VARC-3 criteria.

RESULTS

After PSM, a total of 264 patients were analyzed, of them 132 in each group. Overall baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Primary end-point was similar between MANTA as compared to Prostyle (16.7% vs. 15.3% respectively, p = 0.888). The main driver for VC among MANTA group were minor vascular complications (15.2%). Conversely, minor and major VC contributed equally to the primary endpoint among Prostyle group (7.6%) (p = 0.013). No outcome predictors were identified in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

VCD for transfemoral TAVI using the new-generation Prostyle device or the MANTA device achieved comparable VARC-3 VC rates.

A 20-year journey in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Evolution to current eminence

Since the first groundbreaking procedure in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the management of aortic stenosis (AS). Through striking developments in pertinent equipment and techniques, TAVI has now become the leading therapeutic strategy for aortic valve replacement in patients with severe symptomatic AS. The procedure streamlining from routine use of conscious sedation to a single arterial access approach, the newly adapted implantation techniques, and the introduction of novel technologies such as intravascular lithotripsy and the refinement of valve-bioprosthesis devices along with the accumulating experience have resulted in a dramatic reduction of complications and have improved associated outcomes that are now considered comparable or even superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). These advances have opened the road to the use of TAVI in younger and lower-risk patients and up-to-date data from landmark studies have now established the outstanding efficacy and safety of TAVI in patients with low-surgical risk impelling the most recent ESC guidelines to propose TAVI, as the main therapeutic strategy for patients with AS aged 75 years or older. In this article, we aim to summarize the most recent advances and the current clinical aspects involving the use of TAVI, and we also attempt to highlight impending concerns that need to be further addressed.