Comparison of Vascular Closure Devices Versus Manual Compression After Femoral Artery Puncture in Women.

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.

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.

Comparison of vascular closure devices vs manual compression after femoral artery puncture: the ISAR-CLOSURE randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: The role of vascular closure devices (VCD) for the achievement of hemostasis in patients undergoing transfemoral coronary angiography remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes with the use of 2 hemostasis strategies after diagnostic coronary angiography performed via transfemoral access-a VCD-based strategy with 2 types of devices, an intravascular device and an extravascular device, vs standard manual compression. The primary hypothesis to be tested was that femoral hemostasis achieved through VCD is noninferior to manual compression in terms of vascular access-site complications. A secondary objective was the comparison of the 2 types of VCD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, large-scale, multicenter, open-label clinical trial. We enrolled 4524 patients undergoing coronary angiography with a 6 French sheath via the common femoral artery from April 2011 through May 2014 in 4 centers in Germany. Last 30-day follow-up was performed in July 2014. INTERVENTIONS: After angiography of the access site, patients were randomized to hemostasis with an intravascular VCD, extravascular VCD, or manual compression in a 1:1:1 ratio. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary end point: the composite of access site-related vascular complications at 30 days after randomization with a 2% noninferiority margin. Secondary end points: time to hemostasis, repeat manual compression, and VCD failure. An α-level of .025 was chosen for primary and secondary comparisons. RESULTS: Of the 4524 enrolled patients, 3015 were randomly assigned to a VCD group (1509 received intravascular VCD and 1506 received extravascular VCD) and 1509 patients were randomly assigned to the manual compression group. Before hospital discharge, duplex sonography of the access site was performed in 4231 (94%) patients. The primary end point was observed in 208 patients (6.9%) assigned to receive a VCD and 119 patients (7.9%) assigned to manual compression (difference, -1.0% [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.7%]; P for noninferiority<.001). Time to hemostasis was significantly shorter in patients with VCD (1 minute [interquartile range {IQR}, 0.5-2.0]), vs manual compression (10 minutes [IQR, 10-15]; P < .001). Time to hemostasis was significantly shorter among patients with intravascular VCD (0.5 minute [IQR, 0.2-1.0]), vs extravascular VCD (2.0 minutes [IQR, 1.0-2.0]; P <.001) and closure device failure was also significantly lower among those with intravascular vs extravascular VCD (80 patients [5.3%], vs 184 patients [12.2%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients undergoing transfemoral coronary angiography, VCDs were noninferior to manual compression in terms of vascular access-site complications and reduced time to hemostasis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01389375.

Rationale and design of a randomised clinical trial comparing vascular closure device and manual compression to achieve haemostasis after diagnostic coronary angiography: the Instrumental Sealing of ARterial puncture site - CLOSURE device versus manual compression (ISAR-CLOSURE) trial.

AIMS: Vascular closure devices (VCD) have been introduced into clinical practice with the aim of increasing the procedural efficiency and clinical safety of coronary angiography. However, clinical studies comparing VCD and manual compression have yielded mixed results, and large randomised clinical trials comparing the two strategies are missing. Moreover, comparative efficacy studies between different VCD in routine clinical use are lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Instrumental Sealing of ARterial puncture site - CLOSURE device versus manual compression (ISAR-CLOSURE) trial is a prospective, randomised clinical trial designed to compare the outcomes associated with the use of VCD or manual compression to achieve femoral haemostasis. The test hypothesis is that femoral haemostasis after coronary angiography achieved using VCD is not inferior to manual compression in terms of access-site-related vascular complications. Patients undergoing coronary angiography via the common femoral artery will be randomised in a 1:1:1 fashion to receive FemoSeal VCD, EXOSEAL VCD or manual compression. The primary endpoint is the incidence of the composite of arterial access-related complications (haematoma ≥5 cm, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, access-site-related bleeding, acute ipsilateral leg ischaemia, the need for vascular surgical/interventional treatment or documented local infection) at 30 days after randomisation. According to power calculations based on non-inferiority hypothesis testing, enrolment of 4,500 patients is planned. The trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier: NCT01389375). CONCLUSIONS: The safety of VCD as compared to manual compression in patients undergoing transfemoral coronary angiography remains an issue of clinical equipoise. The aim of the ISAR-CLOSURE trial is to assess whether femoral haemostasis achieved through the use of VCD is non-inferior to manual compression in terms of access-site-related vascular complications.