Literature DB >> 11948884

Randomized comparison of Vasoseal and Angioseal closure devices in patients undergoing coronary angiography and angioplasty.

Nicolas W Shammas1, Vijay R Rajendran, Stephen G Alldredge, William J Witcik, Jon A Robken, J Randolph Lewis, Dawn McKinney, Christena A Hansen, M Elizabeth Kabel, Melodee Harris, Michael J Jerin, Prakash R Bontu, Eric J Dippel, Ajay Labroo.   

Abstract

AngioSeal (AS) and VasoSeal (VS) are collagen-based arterial closure devices utilized to achieve earlier hemostasis and ambulation in diagnostic and interventional percutaneous procedures. To our knowledge, there has been no randomized studies comparing these two devices as approved for use in the United States. One hundred fifty-seven patients were randomized to receive either the 8 Fr AS (n = 79) or VS (n = 78) closure device. Data on 95 patients who had coronary angiography (49 AS, 46 VS) and 55 patients who underwent angioplasty (28 AS, 27 VS) were completed. Heparin was not administered during the coronary angiogram procedure. The activated clotting time was kept at approximately 300 sec during angioplasty. Patients on coumadin or GP IIb/IIIa platelet inhibitors were not included in this study. The time unit interval to achieve hemostasis in this study was based on the time the AS tension spring was left over the common femoral artery following collagen deployment as per the manufacturer's instructions (20 min). Time to hemostasis, time to ambulation, and major and minor complications were prospectively recorded. Two-tailed t-test and chi-square analysis were performed on continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. For the angiogram-only subgroup, time (min) to hemostasis (20.51 +/- 4.36 vs. 18.59 +/- 11.77; P = 0.30) and ambulation (145.71 +/- 124 vs. 109.89 +/- 60.37; P = 0.075) were not statistically different for the AS and VS, respectively. Similarly, for the angioplasty subgroup, time (min) to hemostasis (24.23 +/- 12.70 vs. 19.57 +/- 2.27; P = 0.077) and ambulation (607.32 +/- 344.22 vs. 486.48 +/- 200.37; P = 0.12) were not statistically different for both AS and VS, respectively. Furthermore, there were no statistical differences in deployment failure, major, minor, or total complication rates between the two devices. In the absence of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, VS and the 8 Fr AS devices have statistically similar time to hemostasis and ambulation as well as device failures and complication rates following coronary angiography and angioplasty. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11948884     DOI: 10.1002/ccd.10098

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1522-1946            Impact factor:   2.692


  8 in total

1.  Vascular closure device failure in contemporary practice.

Authors:  Venkatesan D Vidi; Michael E Matheny; Usha S Govindarajulu; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Susan L Robbins; Vikram V Agarwal; Sripal Bangalore; Frederic S Resnic
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 11.195

2.  Safety and efficacy of the Perclose suture-mediated closure device following carotid artery stenting under clopidogrel platelet blockade.

Authors:  Niels Zorger; Thomas Finkenzeller; Markus Lenhart; Okka Hamer; Christian Paetzel; Inghita Borisch; Ingolf Toepel; Stefan Feuerbach; Johann Link
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-11-11       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Iatrogenic claudication from a vascular closure device after cardiac catheterization.

Authors:  Luke Hermann; Evelyn Chow; W Lane Duvall
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2010-12

4.  Evaluation of the method of hemostasis after femoral arterial puncture.

Authors:  Jae-Hwan Cho; Hae-Kag Lee
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2014-07-30

5.  Angio-Seal™ Embolization: A Rare Etiology of an Acute Distal Limb Ischemia.

Authors:  Glenmore Lasam; Joshua Brad Oaks; Jeffrey Brensilver
Journal:  Case Rep Vasc Med       Date:  2017-10-17

Review 6.  Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials on the Safety of Vascular Closure Devices for Femoral Arterial Puncture Site Haemostasis.

Authors:  Jun Jiang; Junjie Zou; Hao Ma; Yuanyong Jiao; Hongyu Yang; Xiwei Zhang; Yi Miao
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Access site complications following transfemoral coronary procedures: comparison between traditional compression and angioseal vascular closure devices for haemostasis.

Authors:  Pei-Jung Wu; Yu-Tzu Dai; Hsien-Li Kao; Chin-Hao Chang; Meei-Fang Lou
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2015-05-09       Impact factor: 2.298

8.  Simplified swift and safe vascular closure device deployment without a local arteriogram: Single center experience in 2074 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Antonis S Manolis; Georgios Georgiopoulos; Dimitris Stalikas; Spyridon Koulouris
Journal:  Indian Heart J       Date:  2016-01-11
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.