ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The value of vascular closure devices (VCD) in women undergoing transfemoral catheterization has not been sufficiently investigated. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a sex-specific analysis of 1395 women enrolled in a large-scale, randomized, multicenter trial, in which patients undergoing transfemoral diagnostic coronary angiography were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to arteriotomy closure with an intravascular VCD, extravascular VCD, or manual compression (MC). Primary objective was to assess the safety and efficacy of 2 different VCD compared with MC regarding vascular access-site complications at 30 days. A secondary comparison was between 2 different types of contemporary VCD. Overall, women were at higher risk for vascular access-site complications compared with men (9.0% versus 6.4%; P=0.002). Vascular access-site complications were comparable in women assigned to VCD and MC (8.6% versus 9.8%; P=0.451). There was no interaction of treatment effect and sex ( Pinteraction=0.970). Time to hemostasis was significantly shortened with VCD compared with MC (1 [interquartile range, 0.5-2.0] minutes) versus 11 [interquartile range, 10-15] minutes; P<0.001); however, more women with VCD required repeat MC (2.4% versus 0.6%; P=0.018). The use of the intravascular compared with the extravascular VCD was associated with a numerical reduction in vascular access-site complications (6.6% versus 10.7%; P=0.027) and significant reductions in time to hemostasis and VCD failure. CONCLUSIONS: In women undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography via the common femoral artery, VCD and MC provided comparable safety, while time to hemostasis was reduced with VCD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01389375.
Subject(s)
Catheterization, Peripheral/methods , Coronary Angiography/methods , Femoral Artery , Hemorrhage/prevention & control , Hemostatic Techniques/instrumentation , Vascular Closure Devices , Aged , Catheterization, Peripheral/adverse effects , Coronary Angiography/adverse effects , Equipment Design , Female , Hemorrhage/etiology , Hemostatic Techniques/adverse effects , Humans , Middle Aged , Pressure , Punctures , Sex Factors , Time Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of arteriotomy closure with the intravascular FemoSeal vascular closure device (VCD; St. Jude Medical) compared to manual compression in patients undergoing diagnostic cardiac catheterization via the common femoral artery. BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on the performance of individual contemporary VCDs compared to manual compression. METHODS: This is a subanalysis of 3018 patients who underwent transfemoral diagnostic coronary angiography and were randomly assigned to arteriotomy closure with either the intravascular FemoSeal VCD or manual compression within the investigator-initiated, large-scale, randomized, multicenter, open-label ISAR-CLOSURE trial. Primary endpoint was the composite of access-site related vascular complications at 30 days. Secondary endpoints were time to hemostasis and repeat manual compression. RESULTS: Vascular access-site complications were lower in patients assigned to the FemoSeal VCD compared to manual compression (6.0% vs 7.9%; P=.04), driven by a lower incidence of hematomas in the FemoSeal group (4.3% vs 6.8%; P<.01). Pseudoaneurysm rates were comparable in both groups (1.5% vs 1.5%; P=.88). Time to hemostasis was significantly shortened with the FemoSeal VCD compared to manual compression (0.5 min [IQR, 0.2-1.0 min] vs 10 min [IQR, 10-15 min]; P<.001). However, repeat manual compression was increased with the FemoSeal VCD (1.5% vs 0.7%; P=.03). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing transfemoral diagnostic coronary angiography, the use of the FemoSeal VCD is associated with shortened time to hemostasis and a reduction in vascular access-site complications driven by fewer hematomas when compared to manual compression.
