Clinical and Subclinical Femoral Vascular Complications after Deployment of two Different Vascular Closure Devices or Manual Compression in the Setting of Coronary Intervention

Comparing Obtura Vascular Closure Device to Manual Compression for Achieving Hemostasis After Percutaneous Transfemoral Procedures: A Randomized Study

PURPOSE

This trial was designed and aimed to compare safety and efficacy of Obtura™ vascular closure device (VCD) to manual compression (MC) among patients undergoing transfemoral catheterization.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial of Obtura VCD against MC randomized patients in 1:1 (n=268; 134:134) ratio. Safety and efficacy were measured by primary endpoints (time to hemostasis [TTH] and deployment success) and secondary endpoints which included technical success, device-related adverse events, and time to ambulation (TTA).

RESULTS

The procedural access using right femoral artery was performed in 95.52% of patients in Obtura VCD versus 96.27% in standard MC method, whereas 2.99% of patients in each group underwent left femoral access. Bilateral access was performed in 1.49% (n=2) versus 0.75% (n=1) in Obtura VCD versus MC, respectively. Both the technical success and deployment success were 100%. Patients in Obtura VCD group had shorter TTH (3.26±3.39 vs 23.95±8.24 minutes; p<0.0001) and TTA (155.44±125.32 vs 723.84±197.98 minutes; p<0.0001) than MC group. No access site complications (re-bleeding, infection, arteriovenous fistula, and transient access site nerve injury) were noted at 2-week, 1-month, and 3-month follow-ups. There were 4 (3%) and 6 (4.5%) cases of hematoma, respectively, in Obtura VCD versus MC and 1 case (0.7%) of post-procedural arterial pseudoaneurysm each in both the groups which were successfully resolved and patients were discharged with no further complications. Further follow-up was without any adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy of Obtura™ VCD with a significantly short TTH and TTA compared to MC.

CLINICAL IMPACT

In patients undergoing cardiac catheterization, vascular closure devices (VCDs) can achieve hemostasis faster after successful implantation of the device with fewer complications such as bleeding and ambulation can be achieved faster. In terms of effectiveness, Obtura VCD was found to be better than manual compression in achieving early hemostasis and higher technical and deployment success was accomplished. Obtura VCD does not require enlargement of the route through the tissues, uses the same existing arterial sheath as its conduit, and does not cause patients' access sites to feel uncomfortable while it is being deployed.

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.

Direct carotid exposure approach in the treatment of anterior circulation unruptured intracranial aneurysms for elderly patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The direct carotid exposure approach (DCEA) is a technical option for elderly patients with severe vessel tortuosity due to arteriosclerosis. We evaluated complications related to antiplatelet/anticoagulant management and compared the DCEA to standard transfemoral/transbrachial approaches (TFBA) in the treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms for elderly patients.

METHODS

From August 2017 to August 2020, 52 patients (53 procedures) aged over 75 years with unruptured aneurysms in the anterior circulation were treated at our institution. All patients received dual antiplatelet drugs before the procedure. Eleven patients (21.2%) (12 procedures) were treated with the DCEA. The rest were treated with TFBA. The main indication of the DCEA was an unfavorable aortic arch or vessel tortuosity. Complications and the duration of the procedure were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in age, aneurysm location, preoperative antiplatelet use, heparin use, or maximum activated clotting time (ACT) values. All endovascular treatments were successfully performed by DCEA. Among all parameters, the DCEA group had only bigger average aneurysm diameter (14 mm) and higher number of pipeline embolic device (PED) placement (58%). Time to the guiding-catheter placement was not significantly different between the groups (DCEA vs TFBA = 31.0 min vs 24.7 min, p = 0.178).　No significant complications of DCEA, such as subcutaneous hematomas, were observed.　.

CONCLUSION

Even with the use of antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy, the DCEA can be performed safely for unruptured aneurysms in elderly patients.

Comparison of the effect of manual compression and closure pad on postangiography complications: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Different methods are available for the closure of the femoral artery after catheterization. The present study aimed at comparing the effect of manual compression (MC) and closure pad (CP) on vascular complications (hematoma and bleeding) of coronary angiography.

METHODS

In the current clinical trial, a total of 238 patients who were candidates for angiography were randomly assigned to the MC and CP groups. In the MC group, after removal of the arterial sheath, the arterial puncture site was manually compressed for 5-10 minutes and hemostasis was achieved. In the CP group, after removal of the arterial sheath, the arterial puncture site was first manually compressed for 5-10 minutes and initial coagulation was achieved. Then, to continue the coagulation process, a CP was attached to the artery puncture site. Postangiography complications including bleeding and hematoma were monitored in both groups immediately and up to 24 hours after hemostasis. Data were analyzed by SPSS-18 software.

RESULTS

After angiography, 7 (9.5%) and 5 (2.4%) patients had hematoma in the MC and CP groups, respectively; however, no significant difference was found between the groups. Rebleeding after hemostasis was observed in 2 (7.1%) patients in the MC group, but none of the subjects in the CP group had rebleeding. There was no significant difference in bleeding volume between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The results indicated the same efficacy of MC and CP methods in the prevention of postangiography vascular complications. Given the advantages of CP such as the possibility of changing the position in bed and increased physical comfort in the patient, this method is recommended for angiography and catheterization.

Deep Vein Thrombosis after Femoral Arterial Access: Pathophysiologic and Therapeutic Challenges

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) after femoral arterial access is a rare complication of left heart catheterization (LHC). The reasons for paradoxical venous clot formation after arterial access are identifiable in some cases but less clear in others. Here, we present one case of provoked DVT after femoral access followed by a second case in which clot formation appears to be spontaneous. Additionally, though each of the patients presented here demonstrated thrombus resolution, only one received anticoagulation. These cases highlight the complex pathophysiology of DVT following femoral arterial access and the challenges of management strategy selection.

Cost-impact of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging with Fast-SENC compared to SPECT in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease in the U.S

AIMS

The purpose of this study is to assess the economic cost differences and the associated treatment resource changes between the developing coronary artery disease (CAD) diagnostic tool fast strain-encoded cardiac imaging (Fast-SENC) and the current commonly used stress test single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A "payer perspective" model was created first, consisting of long-term and short-term components that used a hypothetical cohort of patients of average age (60.8 years) presenting with chest pain and suspected CAD to assess cost-impact. A cost impact model was then built that assessed likely savings from a "hospital perspective" from substituting Fast-SENC for a portion of SPECTs assuming an average number of annual SPECT tests performed in US hospitals.

RESULTS

In the payer model, using Fast-SENC followed by coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treatment when necessary is less costly than the SPECT method when considering both direct and indirect costs of testing. Expected costs of the Fast-SENC were between $2,510 and $2,632 per correct diagnosis, while expected costs for the SPECT were between $3,157 and $4,078. Fast-SENC reduced false positives by 50% and false negatives by 86%, generating additional cost savings. The hospital model showed total costs per CAD patient visit of $825 for SPECT and $376 for Fast-SENC.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations of this study are that clinical data are sourced from other published clinical trials on how CAD diagnostic strategies impact clinical outcome, and that necessary assumptions were made which impact health outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The lower cost, higher sensitivity and specificity rates, and faster, less burdensome process for detecting CAD patients make Fast-SENC a more capable and economically beneficial stress test than SPECT. The payer model and hospital model demonstrate an alignment between payer and provider economics as Fast-SENC provides monetary savings for patients and resource benefits for hospitals.

Extravascular compared to Intravascular Femoral Closure is Associated with Less Bleeding and Similar MACE after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background: Various types of vascular closure devices (VCDs) are frequently utilized in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in order to prevent arterial access site bleeding, which represents one of the most relevant complications associated with adverse clinical outcomes. This study aims to compare directly two mechanistically different types of femoral closure (FC) devices in patients undergoing PCI. Methods: This single-center, prospective, observational study includes consecutively patients either treated by the extravascular StarClose SE® (Abbott, Illinois, U.S.A.) or the intravascular AngioSeal™ FC (St. Jude Medical, Inc., St. Paul, MN, U.S.A.) after PCI. The primary endpoint was bleeding complications, the secondary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days of follow-up. Results: 200 patients in each group (StarClose SE® and AngioSeal™) were enrolled following PCI. The rates of overall and non-access site bleedings were significantly higher in the AngioSeal™ group (56%; 6%) compared to the StarClose SE® group (43.5%; 0.5%) (p = 0.012; 0.003). Additionally, complicated access site bleedings were also significantly higher in the AngioSeal™ group (p = 0.011). No significant differences of MACE were observed in both groups. However, there was a higher rate of unsuccessful implantation of the StarClose SE® (n=12, excluded from the study). Conclusions: In case of successful implantation, FC by the AngioSeal™ is associated with the higher rate of both access and non-access site bleedings, but similar rates of MACE at 30 days compared to the StarClose SE® device.

Comparison of manual compression and vascular hemostasis devices after coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention through femoral artery access: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of manual compression (MC) with vascular hemostasis devices (VHD) in patients undergoing coronary angiography (CA) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) through femoral artery access.

INTRODUCTION

The use of femoral artery access for coronary procedures may result in access-related complications, prolonged immobility and discomfort for the patients. MC results in longer time-to-hemostasis (TTH) and time-to-ambulation (TTA) compared to VHDs but its role in access-related complications remains unclear in patients undergoing coronary procedures.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and relevant references for English language randomized controlled trials (RCT) from inception through September 30, 2016. We performed the meta-analysis using random effects model. The outcomes were time-to-hemostasis, time-to-ambulation, major bleeding, large hematoma >5cm, pseudoaneurysm and other adverse events.

RESULTS

The electronic database search resulted in a total of 44 RCTs with a total of 18,802 patients for analysis. MC, compared to VHD resulted in longer TTH [mean difference (MD): 11.21min; 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.13-14.29; P<0.00001] and TTA [standardized mean difference: 1.2 (0.79-1.62); P<0.00001] along with excess risk of hematoma >5cm formation [risk ratio (RR): 1.38 (1.15-1.67); P=0.0008]. MC resulted in similar risk of major bleeding [1.01 (0.64-1.60); P=0.95] pseudoaneurysm [0.99 (0.75-1.29); P=0.92], infections [0.52 (0.25-1.10); P=0.09], need of surgery [0.60 (0.29-1.22); P=0.16), AV fistula [0.93 (0.68-1.27); P=0.63] and ipsilateral leg ischemia [0.95 (0.57-1.60); P=0.86] compared to VHD.

CONCLUSION

Manual compression increase time-to-hemostasis, time-to-ambulation and risk of hematoma formation compared vascular hemostasis devices.

Jetstream atherectomy and balloon angioplasty with distal embolic protection for Angio-Seal related vascular access complications

Arteriotomy closure devices (ACDs) are routinely used for vascular closure during invasive cardiovascular procedures. They decrease time to hemostasis as well as length of stay. Major complications such as arterial ischemia and occlusion can be encountered in a minority of patients. We are describing a series of 3 patients with access site closure using Angio-Seal after coronary angiography who developed intermittent claudication within 2-3 weeks of follow-up. Access site thrombosis/stenosis in the CFA was found in all the three cases. They were successfully revascularized using Jetstream atherectomy with embolic protection filter followed by balloon angioplasty. This technique can treat extensive thrombus burden as well as extract the collagen and foot plate of Angio-Seal through atherectomy with cutting blades and thrombectomy via rheolytic macerating aspiration port. All cases had excellent angiographic and clinical results.