Literature DB >> 14734598

Arterial puncture closing devices compared with standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Maria Koreny1, Eva Riedmüller, Mariam Nikfardjam, Peter Siostrzonek, Marcus Müllner.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Arterial puncture closing devices (APCDs) were developed to replace standard compression at the puncture site and to shorten bed rest following percutaneous coronary intervention.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of APCDs (Angioseal, Vasoseal, Duett, Perclose, Techstar, Prostar) compared with standard manual compression in patients undergoing coronary angiography or percutaneous vascular interventions. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE (1966-January 2003), EMBASE (1989-January 2003), PASCAL (1996-January 2003), BIOSIS (1990-January 2003), and CINHAL (1982-January 2003) databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant articles in any language. STUDY SELECTION: Included randomized controlled trials reporting vascular complications at the puncture site (hematoma, bleeding, arteriovenous fistula, pseudoaneurysm) and efficacy (time to hemostasis, time to ambulation, time to discharge from hospital). DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers abstracted the data independently and in duplicate. Disagreements were resolved by discussion among at least 3 reviewers. The most important criteria were adequacy of allocation concealment, whether the analysis was according to the intention-to-treat principle, and if person assessing the outcome was blinded to intervention group. Random-effects models were used to pool the data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty trials met the selection criteria and included up to 4000 patients. When comparing any APCD with standard compression, the relative risk (RR) of groin hematoma was 1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-1.51; P =.35); bleeding, 1.48 (95% CI, 0.88-2.48; P =.14); developing an arteriovenous fistula, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.23-2.94; P =.77); and developing a pseudoaneurysm at the puncture site, 1.19 (95% CI, 0.75-1.88; P =.46). Time to hemostasis was shorter in the group with APCD compared with standard compression (mean difference, 17 minutes; range, 14-19 minutes), but there was a high degree of heterogeneity among studies. Only 2 studies explicitly reported allocation concealment, blinded outcome assessment, and intention-to-treat analysis. When limiting analyses to only trials that used explicit intention-to-treat approaches, APCDs were associated with a higher risk of hematoma (RR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.13-3.15) and a higher risk of pseudoaneurysm (RR, 5.40; 95% CI, 1.21-24.5).
CONCLUSIONS: Based on this meta-analysis of 30 randomized trials, many of poor methodological quality, there is only marginal evidence that APCDs are effective and there is reason for concern that these devices may increase the risk of hematoma and pseudoaneurysm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14734598     DOI: 10.1001/jama.291.3.350

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  87 in total

1.  Radioembolization complicated by dissection of the common femoral artery.

Authors:  Sarah G Deitch; Ramona Gupta
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.513

Review 2.  Radial versus femoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention: implications for vascular complications and bleeding.

Authors:  Sandeep Nathan; Sunil V Rao
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.931

3.  Temporal trends in and factors associated with bleeding complications among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data CathPCI Registry.

Authors:  Sumeet Subherwal; Eric D Peterson; David Dai; Laine Thomas; John C Messenger; Ying Xian; Ralph G Brindis; Dmitriy N Feldman; Shaun Senter; Lloyd W Klein; Steven P Marso; Matthew T Roe; Sunil V Rao
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 24.094

Review 4.  Efficacy and safety of the perclose closer s device after neurointerventional procedures: prospective study and literature review.

Authors:  Kamran Khaghany; Firas Al-Ali; Thomas Spigelmoyer; Ron Pimentel; Kurt Wharton
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2005 Jun-Jul       Impact factor: 3.825

5.  Arterial closure device to achieve hemostasis in children following percutaneous femoral arterial puncture.

Authors:  Somnath J Prabhu; Siddharth A Padia; Karim Valji; Michael F McNeeley; Sandeep Vaidya; Nghia J Vo
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2013-01-16

6.  Randomized comparison of effects of suture-based and collagen-based vascular closure devices on post-procedural leg perfusion.

Authors:  H I M Kälsch; H Eggebrecht; S Mayringer; T Konorza; B Sievers; S Sack; R Erbel; K Kroeger
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2007-09-18       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 7.  Percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

Authors:  E Marc Jolicoeur; Tracy Wang; Renato D Lopes; E Magnus Ohman
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.931

8.  ARFI ultrasound for in vivo hemostasis assessment postcardiac catheterization, part I: preclinical studies.

Authors:  Russell H Behler; Mallory R Scola; Timothy C Nichols; Dwight A Bellinger; Caterina M Gallippi
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.578

9.  ARFI ultrasound for in vivo hemostasis assessment postcardiac catheterization, part II: pilot clinical results.

Authors:  Russell H Behler; Mallory R Scola; Timothy C Nichols; Melissa C Caughey; Melrose W Fisher; Hongtu Zhu; Caterina M Gallippi
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.578

10.  [Arterial closure devices. What device for which clinical situation?].

Authors:  M Treitl; K M Eberhardt; D Maxien; B Behrends; M F Reiser
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 0.635

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.