OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the adjusted risk of vascular complications after manual compression and vascular closure devices for femoral artery access site management in a large contemporary cohort, using propensity score analysis. BACKGROUND: Vascular closure devices (VCD) allow early ambulation after cardiac procedures involving femoral artery access, but whether the benefit of use of vascular closure devices (VCD) is offset by reduced safety in contemporary practice remains uncertain. METHODS: Twenty one thousand eight hundred and forty one consecutive diagnostic cardiac catheterization (n = 13,124) and percutaneous coronary intervention procedures (n = 8,717) performed via a femoral access at a single site (WFUBMC) between 1998 and 2003 were evaluated. VCD's were used based on operator preference. Propensity to receive a vascular closure device (VCD) was calculated. The relative incidence of vascular complications was evaluated by logistic regression models, using the propensity score as a covariate. RESULTS: Overall, the unadjusted incidence of any vascular complication was 1.3% for VCD use and 1.4% for manual compression, p = NS. The propensity score-adjusted odds ratio for any vascular complication comparing VCD (n = 8,707) to manual compression (n = 13,034) was 0.86 (0.67-1.11) for all procedures, 0.80 (0.53-1.21) for diagnostic procedure, and 0.90 (0.65-1.26) for interventional procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In this large single-center, contemporary observational study, the risk-adjusted occurrence of vascular complications following VCD use for femoral artery access management is not increased by VCD use. Thus, in the current era, the benefit of VCD use is not offset by reduced safety.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the adjusted risk of vascular complications after manual compression and vascular closure devices for femoral artery access site management in a large contemporary cohort, using propensity score analysis. BACKGROUND: Vascular closure devices (VCD) allow early ambulation after cardiac procedures involving femoral artery access, but whether the benefit of use of vascular closure devices (VCD) is offset by reduced safety in contemporary practice remains uncertain. METHODS: Twenty one thousand eight hundred and forty one consecutive diagnostic cardiac catheterization (n = 13,124) and percutaneous coronary intervention procedures (n = 8,717) performed via a femoral access at a single site (WFUBMC) between 1998 and 2003 were evaluated. VCD's were used based on operator preference. Propensity to receive a vascular closure device (VCD) was calculated. The relative incidence of vascular complications was evaluated by logistic regression models, using the propensity score as a covariate. RESULTS: Overall, the unadjusted incidence of any vascular complication was 1.3% for VCD use and 1.4% for manual compression, p = NS. The propensity score-adjusted odds ratio for any vascular complication comparing VCD (n = 8,707) to manual compression (n = 13,034) was 0.86 (0.67-1.11) for all procedures, 0.80 (0.53-1.21) for diagnostic procedure, and 0.90 (0.65-1.26) for interventional procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In this large single-center, contemporary observational study, the risk-adjusted occurrence of vascular complications following VCD use for femoral artery access management is not increased by VCD use. Thus, in the current era, the benefit of VCD use is not offset by reduced safety.
Authors: Bina Ahmed; Stefan Lischke; Mike De Sarno; Leigh Ann Holterman; Faye Straight; Harold L Dauerman Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Johannes Ketterle; Harald Rittger; Inga Helmig; Lutz Klinghammer; Stefan Zimmermann; Wolfgang Hohenforst-Schmidt; Johannes Brachmann; Holger Nef; Stephan Achenbach; Christian Schlundt Journal: Herz Date: 2015-06-13 Impact factor: 1.443