OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the frequency and predictors of vascular closure device (VCD) deployment failure, and its association with vascular complications of 3 commonly used VCDs. BACKGROUND: VCDs are commonly used following percutaneous coronary intervention on the basis of studies demonstrating reduced time to ambulation, increased patient comfort, and possible reduction in vascular complications as compared with manual compression. However, limited data are available on the frequency and predictors of VCD failure, and the association of deployment failure with vascular complications. METHODS: From a de-identified dataset provided by Massachusetts Department of Health, 23,813 consecutive interventional coronary procedures that used either a collagen plug-based (n = 18,533), a nitinol clip-based (n = 2,284), or a suture-based (n = 2,996) VCD between June 2005 and December 2007 were identified. The authors defined VCD failure as unsuccessful deployment or failure to achieve immediate access site hemostasis. RESULTS: Among 23,813 procedures, the VCD failed in 781 (3.3%) procedures (2.1% of collagen plug-based, 6.1% of suture-based, 9.5% of nitinol clip-based VCDs). Patients with VCD failure had an excess risk of "any" (7.7% vs. 2.8%; p < 0.001), major (3.3% vs. 0.8%; p < 0.001), or minor (5.8% vs. 2.1%; p < 0.001) vascular complications compared with successful VCD deployment. In a propensity score-adjusted analysis, when compared with collagen plug-based VCD (reference odds ratio [OR] = 1.0), nitinol clip-based VCD had 2-fold increased risk (OR: 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8 to 2.3, p < 0.001) and suture-based VCD had 1.25-fold increased risk (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.2 to 1.3, p < 0.001) for VCD failure. VCD failure was a significant predictor of subsequent vascular complications for both collagen plug-based VCD and nitinol clip-based VCD, but not for suture-based VCD. CONCLUSIONS: VCD failure rates vary depending upon the type of VCD used and are associated with significantly higher vascular complications as compared with deployment successes.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the frequency and predictors of vascular closure device (VCD) deployment failure, and its association with vascular complications of 3 commonly used VCDs. BACKGROUND: VCDs are commonly used following percutaneous coronary intervention on the basis of studies demonstrating reduced time to ambulation, increased patient comfort, and possible reduction in vascular complications as compared with manual compression. However, limited data are available on the frequency and predictors of VCD failure, and the association of deployment failure with vascular complications. METHODS: From a de-identified dataset provided by Massachusetts Department of Health, 23,813 consecutive interventional coronary procedures that used either a collagen plug-based (n = 18,533), a nitinol clip-based (n = 2,284), or a suture-based (n = 2,996) VCD between June 2005 and December 2007 were identified. The authors defined VCD failure as unsuccessful deployment or failure to achieve immediate access site hemostasis. RESULTS: Among 23,813 procedures, the VCD failed in 781 (3.3%) procedures (2.1% of collagen plug-based, 6.1% of suture-based, 9.5% of nitinol clip-based VCDs). Patients with VCD failure had an excess risk of "any" (7.7% vs. 2.8%; p < 0.001), major (3.3% vs. 0.8%; p < 0.001), or minor (5.8% vs. 2.1%; p < 0.001) vascular complications compared with successful VCD deployment. In a propensity score-adjusted analysis, when compared with collagen plug-based VCD (reference odds ratio [OR] = 1.0), nitinol clip-based VCD had 2-fold increased risk (OR: 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8 to 2.3, p < 0.001) and suture-based VCD had 1.25-fold increased risk (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.2 to 1.3, p < 0.001) for VCD failure. VCD failure was a significant predictor of subsequent vascular complications for both collagen plug-based VCD and nitinol clip-based VCD, but not for suture-based VCD. CONCLUSIONS:VCD failure rates vary depending upon the type of VCD used and are associated with significantly higher vascular complications as compared with deployment successes.
Authors: C R Ramsay; A M Grant; S A Wallace; P H Garthwaite; A F Monk; I T Russell Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2000 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: R G Brindis; S Fitzgerald; H V Anderson; R E Shaw; W S Weintraub; J F Williams Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-06-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: C P Cannon; A Battler; R G Brindis; J L Cox; S G Ellis; N R Every; J T Flaherty; R A Harrington; H M Krumholz; M L Simoons; F J Van De Werf; W S Weintraub; K R Mitchell; S L Morrisson; R G Brindis; H V Anderson; D S Cannom; W R Chitwood; J E Cigarroa; R L Collins-Nakai; S G Ellis; R J Gibbons; F L Grover; P A Heidenreich; B K Khandheria; S B Knoebel; H L Krumholz; D J Malenka; D B Mark; C R Mckay; E R Passamani; M J Radford; R N Riner; J B Schwartz; R E Shaw; R J Shemin; D B Van Fossen; E D Verrier; M W Watkins; D R Phoubandith; T Furnelli Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Fausto Biancari; Vito D'Andrea; Carlo Di Marco; Grazia Savino; Valentina Tiozzo; Antonio Catania Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Timothy A Sanborn; Ramin Ebrahimi; Steven V Manoukian; Brent T McLaurin; David A Cox; Frederick Feit; Martial Hamon; Roxana Mehran; Gregg W Stone Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Nicolas W Shammas; 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 Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Steven P Marso; Amit P Amin; John A House; Kevin F Kennedy; John A Spertus; Sunil V Rao; David J Cohen; John C Messenger; John S Rumsfeld Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-06-02 Impact factor: 56.272
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: 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
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