INTRODUCTION: We seek to determine whether vascular closure devices (VCDs) are safe and effective for brachial artery access. METHODS: A retrospective review of brachial artery access using either manual compression (MC) or a VCD for hemostasis from November 2005 to February 2011 was performed. RESULTS: Brachial artery access was performed on 154 limbs: MC on 134 limbs and VCD on 20 limbs. The incidence of thrombotic (VCD n = 0 [0%] vs MC n = 7 [5.2%], P = .37), hemorrhagic complications (VCD n = 1 [5%] vs MC n = 7 [5.2%], P = .72), or major adverse events (VCD n = 1 [5%] vs MC n = 16 [12%], P = .32) was not significantly different between the techniques. After univariate and multivariate analysis, female sex (P = .07, relative risk [RR] = 5.7), sheath size > 6F (P = .008, RR = 14.6), and diagnostic versus interventional procedure (P = .04, RR = 0.4) all impacted the occurrence of thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Use of VCD in the brachial artery following an endovascular procedure showed equivalence to MC.
INTRODUCTION: We seek to determine whether vascular closure devices (VCDs) are safe and effective for brachial artery access. METHODS: A retrospective review of brachial artery access using either manual compression (MC) or a VCD for hemostasis from November 2005 to February 2011 was performed. RESULTS:Brachial artery access was performed on 154 limbs: MC on 134 limbs and VCD on 20 limbs. The incidence of thrombotic (VCD n = 0 [0%] vs MC n = 7 [5.2%], P = .37), hemorrhagic complications (VCD n = 1 [5%] vs MC n = 7 [5.2%], P = .72), or major adverse events (VCD n = 1 [5%] vs MC n = 16 [12%], P = .32) was not significantly different between the techniques. After univariate and multivariate analysis, female sex (P = .07, relative risk [RR] = 5.7), sheath size > 6F (P = .008, RR = 14.6), and diagnostic versus interventional procedure (P = .04, RR = 0.4) all impacted the occurrence of thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Use of VCD in the brachial artery following an endovascular procedure showed equivalence to MC.