Comparison of the FemoSeal Vascular Closure Device With Manual Compression After Femoral Artery Puncture - Post-hoc Analysis of a Large-Scale, Randomized Clinical Trial.

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.

Active Versus Passive Anchoring Vascular Closure Devices Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Safety and Efficacy Comparative Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the prevalence of complications and failure rates between the most commonly used "active" anchoring vascular closure device (VCD), AngioSeal™ and the "passive" anchoring VCD, Mynx™, in all-comers undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: A total of 4,074 patients between 2008 and 2014, representing an era when both devices were available, were included. Thirty-two percent were acute coronary syndromes (37% STEMI). VCD choice was at the operator's discretion and included AngioSeal (n = 2,910) or Mynx (1,164). Cardiogenic shock or patients receiving intra-aortic balloon pumps were excluded. Safety was assessed by vascular complications defined as either vascular injury (perforation, dissection, acute limb ischemia, arteriovenous fistula, pseudoaneurysm with thrombin injection, or surgical repair) or access-site bleed (hemoglobin droP >3 g/dL requiring transfusion, retroperitoneal bleed, or hematoma >5 cm, or the composite of both. Efficacy was evaluated by device failure and defined as inability to achieve immediate hemostasis or use of additional hemostatic mechanisms. Outcomes at 30-days were evaluated. RESULTS: Groups (AngioSeal vs Mynx) were fairly balanced with regards to bleeding risk factors of gender (male, 65% vs 66%), body mass index (30 ± 6 vs 30 ± 7), heart failure class III/IV (5% vs 6%), chronic kidney disease (15% vs 17%), use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (5% vs 4%), or bivalirudin (86% vs 88%), all P >0.5. The AngioSeal group was slightly younger (64 ± 12 vs 65 ± 12, P < 0.001) with less peripheral arterial disease (11.3% vs 13.9%, P = 0.03), and increased 7F sheath use compared with Mynx (59% vs 22%, P < 0.001). Safety and efficacy outcomes were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: AngioSeal and Mynx appear to be equally safe and efficacious VCDs following PCI. The passive anchoring system may prove desirable as no intra-arterial anchor remains upon device removal.