Comparison of vascular closure devices for access site closure after transfemoral aortic valve implantation

Israel M. Barbash, Marco Barbanti, John Webb, Javier Molina-Martin De Nicolas, Yigal Abramowitz, Azeem Latib, Caroline Nguyen, Florian Deuschl, Amit Segev, Konstantinos Sideris, Sergio Buccheri, Matheus Simonato, Francesco Della Rosa, Corrado Tamburino, Hasan Jilaihawi, Tadashi Miyazaki, Dominique Himbert, Niklas Schofer, Victor Guetta, Sabine BleizifferDidier Tchetche, Sebastiano Immè, Raj R. Makkar, Alec Vahanian, Hendrik Treede, Rüdiger Lange, Antonio Colombo, Danny Dvir

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background The majority of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures are currently performed by percutaneous transfemoral approach. The potential contribution of the type of vascular closure device to the incidence of vascular complications is not clear. Aim To compare the efficacy of a Prostar XL-vs. Perclose ProGlide-based vascular closure strategy. Methods The ClOsure device iN TRansfemoral aOrtic vaLve implantation (CONTROL) multi-center study included 3138 consecutive percutaneous transfemoral TAVI patients, categorized according to vascular closure strategy: Prostar XL-(Prostar group) vs. Perclose ProGlide-based vascular closure strategy (ProGlide group). Propensity-score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Results Propensity matching identified 944 well-matched patients (472 patient pairs). Composite primary end point of major vascular complications or in-hospital mortality occurred more frequently in Prostar group when compared with ProGlide group (9.5 vs. 5.1%, P = 0.016), and was driven by higher rates of major vascular complication (7.4 vs. 1.9%, P <0.001) in the Prostar group. However, in-hospital mortality was similar between groups (4.9 vs. 3.5%, P = 0.2). Femoral artery stenosis occurred less frequently in the Prostar group (3.4 vs. 0.5%, P = 0.004), but overall, Prostar use was associated with higher rates of major bleeding (16.7 vs. 3.2%, P <0.001), acute kidney injury (17.6 vs. 4.4%, P <0.001) and with longer hospital stay (median 6 vs. 5 days, P = 0.007). Conclusions Prostar XL-based vascular closure in transfemoral TAVI procedures is associated with higher major vascular complication rates when compared with ProGlide; however, in-hospital mortality is similar with both devices.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3370-3379
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean Heart Journal
Volume36
Issue number47
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 14 2015

Keywords

  • Aortic stenosis
  • Transcatheter aortic valve replacement
  • Vascular closure device
  • Vascular complication

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of vascular closure devices for access site closure after transfemoral aortic valve implantation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Barbash, I. M., Barbanti, M., Webb, J., Molina-Martin De Nicolas, J., Abramowitz, Y., Latib, A., Nguyen, C., Deuschl, F., Segev, A., Sideris, K., Buccheri, S., Simonato, M., Rosa, F. D., Tamburino, C., Jilaihawi, H., Miyazaki, T., Himbert, D., Schofer, N., Guetta, V., ... Dvir, D. (2015). Comparison of vascular closure devices for access site closure after transfemoral aortic valve implantation. European Heart Journal, 36(47), 3370-3379. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv417