Korean single-center experience with femoral access closure using the ExoSeal device

Efficacy and Safety of Ultrasound-Guided Repeat Access and Repeat Closure With an ExoSeal Vascular Closure System in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided repeat access and repeat closure with an ExoSeal vascular closure system.

METHODS

A total of 123 endovascular therapy (EVT) procedures were performed in 59 patients (65 limbs) with ultrasound-guided repeat access and repeat implantation of an ExoSeal vascular closure system between January 2019 and March 2021. The procedural details and postprocedural outcomes of EVT with repeat access and use of ExoSeal (RE group) were compared with those of EVT with initial use of ExoSeal (IE group) in the same patients. In a subgroup analysis, these outcomes were also compared in early repeat (within 3 months) and late repeat (over 3 months) cases.

RESULTS

The technical success rate of ultrasound-guided access in the RE group was 100%. The procedural success rate of EVT and deployment success rate of ExoSeal in the RE group were 93% and 94%, respectively, which were not significantly different to those in the IE group. Access site complications in the RE group occurred in 2 cases (2%), again with no significant difference with the IE group. The median puncture, procedural, and hemostasis times in the RE group were 3 [2-5], 36.5 [29-54], and 7 [5-10] min, respectively, which were not significantly longer than those in the IE group. In the RE group, early and late repeat closure was performed in 66 (54%) and 57 (46%) cases, respectively, and there were no significant differences in the technical success of ultrasound-guided access, procedural success of EVT, deployment success of ExoSeal, and access site complication rates in these cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound-guided access facilitated higher technical success of repeat access and fewer access site complications in EVT with repeat use of ExoSeal, regardless of the interval between procedures.

Safety and efficacy of Mynx vascular closure device for the closure of common femoral artery access after ipsilateral stent placement

Introduction:

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the Mynx vascular closure device (VCD) for arteriotomy closure after stent placement near the common femoral artery (CFA) access site.

Methods:

A total of 88 patients (73 men; mean age, 72 ± 9.2 years; 136 procedures) who underwent closure of CFA arteriotomy using the Mynx VCD after stent placement in proximal superficial femoral artery (SFA) with antegrade approach, or in common or external iliac artery with retrograde approach were retrospectively studied. Technical success and access site complication were evaluated. Body mass index (BMI), platelet count, international normalized ratio, prior history of ipsilateral CFA access, access direction, degree of CFA calcification, stent location and diameter, total procedure time, and sheath size were analyzed to evaluate their relationship with technical failure and development of bleeding complications.

Results:

Technical success was achieved in 94.9% (129/136) patients. The mean time to hemostasis was 0.7 ± 1.8 min. Technical failure was significantly associated with low BMI ( p = 0.001). Other variables presented no significant relationship with technical failure and development of complications. Ultrasonography on the day after the procedure revealed that 8 (5.9%) patients had hematoma.

Conclusions:

Mynx VCD for arteriotomy closure is feasible and provides hemostatic safety after stent placement near antegrade or retrograde CFA access. However, Mynx VCD may have a poor technical success rate among patients with low BMI.

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.