Comparative data of single versus double proglide vascular preclose technique after percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation from the optimized catheter valvular intervention (OCEAN-TAVI) japanese multicenter registry.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the feasibility of percutaneous arterial access site closure after percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) using single versus double Perclose ProGlide devices.

BACKGROUNDS: Although suturing with the preclose technique has been widely adopted during TF-TAVI, the optimal vascular closure strategy is still under debate.

METHODS

Data from 279 patients who underwent TF-TAVI, obtained from the Optimized CathEter vAlvular iNtervention (OCEAN-TAVI) Japanese multicenter registry. Technical, procedural, and clinical outcomes were compared between the single ProGlide group (n = 99) and double ProGlide group (n = 180). They were also analyzed by propensity adjusted matching model (single [n = 69] vs. double [n = 69]). All patients were treated through a 16-Fr to 20-Fr eSheath. Technical success of the closure device was defined as hemostasis not requiring alternative invasive treatment. Access site-related vascular complications, bleedings, and other procedural complications were defined according to the Valvular Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) criteria.

RESULTS

The rates of technical success and access site-related vascular complications were similar in the 2 groups (94.9% vs. 91.6%, p = 0.44; 5.0% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.54, respectively). The prevalence of bleeding complications did not differ between the 2 groups (1.0% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.43). Thirty-day mortality rate also showed no difference between the 2 groups (2.0% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.95), although these events were not associated with access site failure. These results were not attenuated in the propensity matching model.

CONCLUSIONS

Vascular closure with a single ProGlide in TF-TAVI could achieve equivalent, acceptable rates of technical success and procedural complications compared with the double ProGlide technique. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.