BACKGROUND: The majority of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures are currently performed by percutaneous transfemoral approach. The potential contribution of the type of vascular closure device to the incidence of vascular complications is not clear. AIM: To compare the efficacy of a Prostar XL- vs. Perclose ProGlide-based vascular closure strategy. METHODS: The ClOsure device iN TRansfemoral aOrtic vaLve implantation (CONTROL) multi-center study included 3138 consecutive percutaneous transfemoral TAVI patients, categorized according to vascular closure strategy: Prostar XL- (Prostar group) vs. Perclose ProGlide-based vascular closure strategy (ProGlide group). Propensity-score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Propensity matching identified 944 well-matched patients (472 patient pairs). Composite primary end point of major vascular complications or in-hospital mortality occurred more frequently in Prostar group when compared with ProGlide group (9.5 vs. 5.1%, P = 0.016), and was driven by higher rates of major vascular complication (7.4 vs. 1.9%, P < 0.001) in the Prostar group. However, in-hospital mortality was similar between groups (4.9 vs. 3.5%, P = 0.2). Femoral artery stenosis occurred less frequently in the Prostar group (3.4 vs. 0.5%, P = 0.004), but overall, Prostar use was associated with higher rates of major bleeding (16.7 vs. 3.2%, P < 0.001), acute kidney injury (17.6 vs. 4.4%, P < 0.001) and with longer hospital stay (median 6 vs. 5 days, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Prostar XL-based vascular closure in transfemoral TAVI procedures is associated with higher major vascular complication rates when compared with ProGlide; however, in-hospital mortality is similar with both devices. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The majority of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures are currently performed by percutaneous transfemoral approach. The potential contribution of the type of vascular closure device to the incidence of vascular complications is not clear. AIM: To compare the efficacy of a Prostar XL- vs. PercloseProGlide-based vascular closure strategy. METHODS: The ClOsure device iN TRansfemoral aOrtic vaLve implantation (CONTROL) multi-center study included 3138 consecutive percutaneous transfemoral TAVI patients, categorized according to vascular closure strategy: Prostar XL- (Prostar group) vs. PercloseProGlide-based vascular closure strategy (ProGlide group). Propensity-score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Propensity matching identified 944 well-matched patients (472 patient pairs). Composite primary end point of major vascular complications or in-hospital mortality occurred more frequently in Prostar group when compared with ProGlide group (9.5 vs. 5.1%, P = 0.016), and was driven by higher rates of major vascular complication (7.4 vs. 1.9%, P < 0.001) in the Prostar group. However, in-hospital mortality was similar between groups (4.9 vs. 3.5%, P = 0.2). Femoral artery stenosis occurred less frequently in the Prostar group (3.4 vs. 0.5%, P = 0.004), but overall, Prostar use was associated with higher rates of major bleeding (16.7 vs. 3.2%, P < 0.001), acute kidney injury (17.6 vs. 4.4%, P < 0.001) and with longer hospital stay (median 6 vs. 5 days, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Prostar XL-based vascular closure in transfemoral TAVI procedures is associated with higher major vascular complication rates when compared with ProGlide; however, in-hospital mortality is similar with both devices. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Herbert G Kroon; Pim A L Tonino; Mikko Savontaus; Giovanni Amoroso; Mika Laine; Evald H Christiansen; Stefan Toggweiler; Jur Ten Berg; Janarthanan Sathananthan; Joost Daemen; Peter P de Jaegere; Guus B R G Brueren; Markus Malmberg; Ton Slagboom; Noriaki Moriyama; Christian J Terkelsen; Federico Moccetti; Livia Gheorghe; John Webb; David Wood; Nicolas M Van Mieghem Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2020-12-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Maarten P van Wiechen; Herbert Kroon; Thijmen W Hokken; Joris F Ooms; Marjo J de Ronde-Tillmans; Joost Daemen; Peter P de Jaegere; Nicolas M Van Mieghem Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 2.585
Authors: Zisis Dimitriadis; Werner Scholtz; Stephan M Ensminger; Cornelia Piper; Thomas Bitter; Marcus Wiemer; Marios Vlachojannis; Jochen Börgermann; Lothar Faber; Dieter Horstkotte; Jan Gummert; Smita Scholtz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Radosław Parma; Maciej Dąbrowski; Andrzej Ochała; Adam Witkowski; Dariusz Dudek; Zbigniew Siudak; Jacek Legutko Journal: Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 1.426
Authors: Thomas Pilgrim; Joe K T Lee; Crochan J O'Sullivan; Stefan Stortecky; Sara Ariotti; Anna Franzone; Jonas Lanz; Dik Heg; Masahiko Asami; Fabien Praz; George C M Siontis; René Vollenbroich; Lorenz Räber; Marco Valgimigli; Eva Roost; Stephan Windecker Journal: Open Heart Date: 2018-01-20