Clinical outcomes of MANTA vs suture-based vascular closure devices after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: An updated meta-analysis

Objective: A recently published randomized control trial showed different results with suture-based vascular closure device (VCD) than plug-based VCD in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The learning curve for MANTA device is steep, while the learning curve for suture based VCD is shallow as the devices are quite different. In this meta-analysis, we have compared suture-based (ProGlide and Prostar XL) vs plug-based VCDs (MANTA). Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of all published studies (using PubMed/Medline and Cochrane databases) reporting the clinical outcome of plug-based vs suture-based VCDs in transfemoral TAVR patients. Results: We included nine studies with a total of 2865 patients (plug-based n ¼ 1631, suture-based n ¼ 1234). There was no significant difference in primary outcome of all bleeding when using plugbased as opposed to suture-based VCDs (RR 1.14 [0.62e2.06] I2 ¼ 72%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of secondary outcomes between two groups including major life threatening bleeding (RR 1.16 [0.38e3.58] I2 ¼ 65%), major vascular complications (RR 0.84 [0.35e2.00] I2 ¼ 55%), minor vascular complications (RR 1.05 [0.56e1.95] I2 ¼ 42%), pseudo aneurysm (RR 1.84 [0.11e29.98] I 2 ¼ 44%), stenosis-dissection (RR 0.98 [0.66e1.47] I2 ¼ 0%), VCD failure (RR 1.71 [0.96e3.04] I2 ¼ 0%), and blood transfusion (RR 1.01 [0.38e2.71], I2 ¼ 61%). Conclusion: Large bore arteriotomy closure with plug-based VCD was not superior to suture-based VCDs in this transfemoral TAVR population. There was very frequent use of secondary VCDs in suture-based VCD group which is not practical when using MANTA. Additional high-powered studies are required to determine the safety and efficacy of MANTA device.

Right ventricular systolic pressure – Non-invasive bedside predictor of mortality and readmission in heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction hospitalization

Objective: To study the prognostic role of right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) in patients with heart failure (HF). Background: Although RVSP is a readily available echocardiographic parameter, it is often underused. Its prognostic role in patients with heart failure is not well established compared with pulmonary artery pressure measured by right heart catheterization. Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study included patients with acute heart failure hospitalization admitted to the hospital from January 2005 to December 2018. The primary predictor was right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) obtained from bedside transthoracic echocardiography at admission. We divided RVSP into two groups, RVSP <40 mm Hg (reference group) and RVSP 40 mm Hg. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were all-cause readmission and cardiac readmission. We conducted propensity-score matching and applied cox-proportional hazard model to compute hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Out of 972 HF patients, 534 patients had RVSP <40 mm Hg and 438 patients had RVSP 40 mm Hg. Patients with RVSP 40 mm Hg compared with RVSP <40 mm Hg were associated with higher rates of death [HR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.22e2.09, P-value ¼ 0.001], all-cause readmissions [HR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.09 e1.73, P-value ¼ 0.008] and cardiac readmissions [HR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.07e1.85, P-value ¼ 0.014]. Conclusion: Higher RVSP (40 mm Hg) in HF patients was associated with higher rates of death, allcause readmissions, and cardiac readmissions. RVSP can be considered as a prognostic marker for mortality and readmission.P

Meta-analysis of ProGlide versus MANTA vascular closure devices for large-bore access site management

Introduction: The comparative effectiveness of ProGlide® compared with MANTA® vascular closure devices (VCDs) in large-bore access site management is not entirely certain, and has only been evaluated in underpowered studies. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ProGlide® compared with MANTA® VCDs. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched systematically for relevant articles from the inception of the database until August 27, 2021. The outcomes of interest were all bleeding events, major bleeding, major and minor vascular complications, pseudoaneurysm, stenosis or dissection, and VCD failure. Risk ratios were used as point estimates of endpoints. All statistical analyses were carried out using R version 4.0.3. Results: Four observational studies and 1 pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) were included in the final analysis. There was no significant difference between the ProGlide® and MANTA® groups in the risk of all bleeding events, major/life-threatening bleeding, major vascular complications, minor vascular complications, pseudoaneurysms, and/or stenosis or dissection of the entry site vessel. However, the incidence of VCD failure was higher in the ProGlide® group compared with the MANTA® group (RR 1.94; 95% CI 1.31e2.84; I2 ¼ 0%). Conclusion: In conclusion, both VCDs (ProGlide® and MANTA®) have comparable outcomes with regard to risk of bleeding, vascular complications, pseudoaneurysms, and/or stenosis or dissection of entry vessel. ProGlide® was however associated with higher device failure.