Julia Seeger1, Birgid Gonska1, Christoph Rodewald1, Wolfgang Rottbauer1, Jochen Wöhrle2. 1. Department of Internal Medicine II, Cardiology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany. 2. Department of Internal Medicine II, Cardiology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany. Electronic address: jochen.woehrle@uniklinik-ulm.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Management of femoral access site is an important issue in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and crucial for acute and long-term outcome. Data on vascular closure devices in this setting are limited. We evaluated safety and efficacy of the Prostar XL compared to the ProGlide suture-based vascular closure device. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled 585 patients undergoing percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Outcomes were defined according to Valve academic research consortium (VARC)-2 criteria. In 237 (40.5%) patients femoral access site closure was performed using the Prostar and in 348 patients (59.6%) using the ProGlide vascular closure device. There was no significant difference in patient baseline characteristics including single and dual antiplatelet therapies. Sheath outer diameter was significantly larger in the ProGlide compared with the Prostar group (7.7±1.5 vs. 7.9±0.5mm; p=0.001). Closure device failure according to VARC-2 criteria was significantly more frequent with the Prostar versus ProGlide device (19% vs. 4.6%; p<0.01). Need for surgical repair (11.8% vs. 0%, p<0.01), major (12.2% vs. 2.3%, p<0.01) and minor (17.3% vs. 5.7%, p<0.01) vascular complications and bleeding complications (5.5% vs. 2.0%, p=0.02) occurred significantly more often with the Prostar device compared with the ProGlide system. In addition, in-hospital mortality was higher with Prostar compared with ProGlide (5.9% vs. 2.0%; p=0.01). CONCLUSION: Femoral access site closure with the ProGlide device compared with the Prostar device in transfemoral aortic valve implantation was associated with significantly lower rates of closure device failure, minor and major bleedings and a significantly lower in-hospital mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.govNCT02162069.
BACKGROUND: Management of femoral access site is an important issue in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and crucial for acute and long-term outcome. Data on vascular closure devices in this setting are limited. We evaluated safety and efficacy of the Prostar XL compared to the ProGlide suture-based vascular closure device. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled 585 patients undergoing percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Outcomes were defined according to Valve academic research consortium (VARC)-2 criteria. In 237 (40.5%) patients femoral access site closure was performed using the Prostar and in 348 patients (59.6%) using the ProGlide vascular closure device. There was no significant difference in patient baseline characteristics including single and dual antiplatelet therapies. Sheath outer diameter was significantly larger in the ProGlide compared with the Prostar group (7.7±1.5 vs. 7.9±0.5mm; p=0.001). Closure device failure according to VARC-2 criteria was significantly more frequent with the Prostar versus ProGlide device (19% vs. 4.6%; p<0.01). Need for surgical repair (11.8% vs. 0%, p<0.01), major (12.2% vs. 2.3%, p<0.01) and minor (17.3% vs. 5.7%, p<0.01) vascular complications and bleeding complications (5.5% vs. 2.0%, p=0.02) occurred significantly more often with the Prostar device compared with the ProGlide system. In addition, in-hospital mortality was higher with Prostar compared with ProGlide (5.9% vs. 2.0%; p=0.01). CONCLUSION: Femoral access site closure with the ProGlide device compared with the Prostar device in transfemoral aortic valve implantation was associated with significantly lower rates of closure device failure, minor and major bleedings and a significantly lower in-hospital mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.govNCT02162069.
Authors: Gregor Heitzinger; Christina Brunner; Sophia Koschatko; Varius Dannenberg; Katharina Mascherbauer; Kseniya Halavina; Carolina Doná; Matthias Koschutnik; Georg Spinka; Christian Nitsche; Markus Mach; Martin Andreas; Florian Wolf; Christian Loewe; Christoph Neumayer; Michael Gschwandtner; Andrea Willfort-Ehringer; Max-Paul Winter; Irene M Lang; Philipp E Bartko; Christian Hengstenberg; Georg Goliasch Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-01-21
Authors: Claudio Montalto; Andrea Raffaele Munafò; Luca Arzuffi; Francesco Soriano; Antonio Mangieri; Stefano Nava; Giovanni Luigi De Maria; Francesco Burzotta; Fabrizio D'Ascenzo; Antonio Colombo; Azeem Latib; Jacopo Andrea Oreglia; Adrian P Banning; Italo Porto; Gabriele Crimi Journal: Eur Heart J Open Date: 2022-08-18
Authors: Sergio Berti; Francesco Bedogni; Arturo Giordano; Anna S Petronio; Alessandro Iadanza; Antonio L Bartorelli; Bernard Reimers; Carmen Spaccarotella; Carlo Trani; Tiziana Attisano; Angela Marella Cenname; Gennaro Sardella; Roberto Bonmassari; Massimo Medda; Fabrizio Tomai; Giuseppe Tarantini; Eliano P Navarese Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-10-24 Impact factor: 5.501