BACKGROUND: Vascular closure devices (VCDs) are effective in reducing the time to ambulation for patients undergoing cardiac catheterization procedures and in reducing the risk of vascular complications in selected patient cohorts. However, the frequency and consequence of failure of VCDs is not well defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: From a prospective registry of consecutive patients undergoing cardiac catheterization at our center, 9823 patients who received either a collagen plug-based (Angio-Seal) or a suture-based (Perclose) VCD were selected for the study. VCD failure was defined as unsuccessful deployment or failure to achieve hemostasis. Major vascular complication was defined as any retroperitoneal hemorrhage, limb ischemia, or any surgical repair. Minor vascular complication was defined as any groin bleeding, hematoma (> or = 5 cm), pseudoaneurysm, or arteriovenous fistula. Any vascular complication was defined as either a major or minor vascular complication. Among the 9823 patients in the study, VCD failed in 268 patients (2.7%; 2.3% diagnostic versus 3.0% percutaneous coronary intervention; P=0.029). Patients with VCD failure had significantly increased risk of any (6.7% versus 1.4%; P<0.0001), major (1.9% versus 0.6%; P=0.006), or minor (6.0% versus 1.1%; P<0.0001) vascular complication compared with the group with successful deployment of VCD. The increased risk of vascular complication was unchanged in a propensity score-matched cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary practice, VCD failure is rare, but when it does fail, it is associated with a significant increase in the risk of vascular complications. Patients with VCD failure should be closely monitored.
BACKGROUND: Vascular closure devices (VCDs) are effective in reducing the time to ambulation for patients undergoing cardiac catheterization procedures and in reducing the risk of vascular complications in selected patient cohorts. However, the frequency and consequence of failure of VCDs is not well defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: From a prospective registry of consecutive patients undergoing cardiac catheterization at our center, 9823 patients who received either a collagen plug-based (Angio-Seal) or a suture-based (Perclose) VCD were selected for the study. VCD failure was defined as unsuccessful deployment or failure to achieve hemostasis. Major vascular complication was defined as any retroperitoneal hemorrhage, limb ischemia, or any surgical repair. Minor vascular complication was defined as any groin bleeding, hematoma (> or = 5 cm), pseudoaneurysm, or arteriovenous fistula. Any vascular complication was defined as either a major or minor vascular complication. Among the 9823 patients in the study, VCD failed in 268 patients (2.7%; 2.3% diagnostic versus 3.0% percutaneous coronary intervention; P=0.029). Patients with VCD failure had significantly increased risk of any (6.7% versus 1.4%; P<0.0001), major (1.9% versus 0.6%; P=0.006), or minor (6.0% versus 1.1%; P<0.0001) vascular complication compared with the group with successful deployment of VCD. The increased risk of vascular complication was unchanged in a propensity score-matched cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary practice, VCD failure is rare, but when it does fail, it is associated with a significant increase in the risk of vascular complications. Patients with VCD failure should be closely monitored.
Authors: Robert J Applegate; Mark A Grabarczyk; William C Little; Timothy Craven; Michael Walkup; Frederic R Kahl; Gregory A Braden; Kevin M Rankin; Michael A Kutcher Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-07-03 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Eugenia Nikolsky; Roxana Mehran; Amir Halkin; Eve D Aymong; Gary S Mintz; Zoran Lasic; Manuela Negoita; Martin Fahy; Shoshana Krieger; Issam Moussa; Jeffrey W Moses; Gregg W Stone; Martin B Leon; Stuart J Pocock; George Dangas Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: W G Kussmaul; M Buchbinder; P L Whitlow; U T Aker; R R Heuser; S B King; K M Kent; M B Leon; D M Kolansky; J G Sandza Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Steven C Wagner; Carin F Gonsalves; David J Eschelman; Kevin L Sullivan; Joseph Bonn Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Usha S Govindarajulu; Marco Stillo; David Goldfarb; Michael E Matheny; Frederic S Resnic Journal: Stat Med Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 2.373
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
Authors: Ruby C Lo; Margriet T M Fokkema; Thomas Curran; Jeremy Darling; Allen D Hamdan; Mark Wyers; Michelle Martin; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2014-09-18 Impact factor: 4.268