Literature DB >> 22826017

Arteriotomy closure device safety after percutaneous coronary intervention in the direct thrombin inhibitor era: a comparative study.

Gus Theodos1, Chad Raymond, Matthew C Becker, Julie Thornton, Stephen G Ellis, Deepak L Bhatt, Russell E Raymond.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the safety and risk of vascular complications of arteriotomy closure devices (ACD) with the direct thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
BACKGROUND: ACDs and manual compression have been shown to have a similar risk of complications in the setting of PCI with heparin ± glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor usage. In many centers bivalirudin is becoming the most frequent type of anticoagulation used during PCI. We sought to determine the risk of vascular complications using Angio-Seal, Perclose, and manual compression for groin hemostasis using predominantly bivalirudin.
METHODS: Our institution's interventional database retrospectively identified 14,354 consecutive patients undergoing PCI from 2000 to 2008. Patients were grouped by the adjunctive anticoagulation used (bivalirudin vs. heparin + GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors) as well as ACD employed. The incidence of complications was evaluated using multivariable analysis to account for baseline differences between groups.
RESULTS: Patients undergoing PCI with adjunctive bivalirudin had significantly fewer complications overall, regardless of closure method (2.9% vs. 8.7%, P < 0.001). The Perclose group had significantly fewer complications than the Angio-Seal and manual compression groups (3.9% vs. 5.6% vs. 9.0%, P < 0.001) respectively; the Angio-Seal group had significantly fewer complications than manual compression. Multivariable analysis also identified age ≥ 65, female gender, BMI ≤ 26, and operator as independent predictors of complications.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of adjunctive bivalirudin during PCI was associated with fewer vascular complications. In addition, the Perclose and Angio-Seal devices had significantly fewer complications than manual compression and women ≥ 65 are at highest risk.
Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22826017     DOI: 10.1002/ccd.24393

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


  5 in total

Review 1.  Access and hemostasis: femoral and popliteal approaches and closure devices-why, what, when, and how?

Authors:  Iacopo Barbetta; Jos C van den Berg
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 1.513

2.  Large-scale experience with an anchorless vascular closure device in a real-life clinical setting.

Authors:  Verena Schelp; Sandra Freitag-Wolf; Dieter Hinzmann; Peter Bramlage; Norbert Frey; Derk Frank
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 5.460

3.  [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

4.  Effects of position change on lumbar pain and discomfort of Korean patients after invasive percutaneous coronary intervention: a RCT study.

Authors:  Nam Hyun Cha; Sohyune Sok
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2016-10-28

5.  Angio-Seal Vascular Closure Related Acute Limb Ischemia: A Case Report.

Authors:  Maya Srinivasan; Pramod Theetha Kariyanna; Jeremy Smith; Sushruth Das; Amog Jayarangaiah; Sudhanva Hegde; Jessica L Perez Perez; Isabel M McFarlane
Journal:  Am J Med Case Rep       Date:  2019-12-25
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.