Comparison of vascular closure devices for access site closure after transfemoral aortic valve implantation

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Background

The majority of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures are currently performed by percutaneous transfemoral approach. The potential contribution of the type of vascular closure device to the incidence of vascular complications is not clear.

Aim

To compare the efficacy of a Prostar XL- vs. Perclose ProGlide-based vascular closure strategy.

Methods

The ClOsure device iN TRansfemoral aOrtic vaLve implantation (CONTROL) multi-center study included 3138 consecutive percutaneous transfemoral TAVI patients, categorized according to vascular closure strategy: Prostar XL- (Prostar group) vs. Perclose ProGlide-based vascular closure strategy (ProGlide group). Propensity-score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics.

Results

Propensity matching identified 944 well-matched patients (472 patient pairs). Composite primary end point of major vascular complications or in-hospital mortality occurred more frequently in Prostar group when compared with ProGlide group (9.5 vs. 5.1%, P = 0.016), and was driven by higher rates of major vascular complication (7.4 vs. 1.9%, P < 0.001) in the Prostar group. However, in-hospital mortality was similar between groups (4.9 vs. 3.5%, P = 0.2). Femoral artery stenosis occurred less frequently in the Prostar group (3.4 vs. 0.5%, P = 0.004), but overall, Prostar use was associated with higher rates of major bleeding (16.7 vs. 3.2%, P < 0.001), acute kidney injury (17.6 vs. 4.4%, P < 0.001) and with longer hospital stay (median 6 vs. 5 days, P = 0.007).

Conclusions

Prostar XL-based vascular closure in transfemoral TAVI procedures is associated with higher major vascular complication rates when compared with ProGlide; however, in-hospital mortality is similar with both devices.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles