Dual ProGlide versus ProGlide and FemoSeal for vascular access haemostasis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND

Large-bore arteriotomy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) requires percutaneous vascular closure devices, but real-world data comparing different closure strategies are limited.

AIMS: We sought to compare a dual ProGlide strategy vs a combination of one ProGlide and one FemoSeal for vascular closure after TAVI.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed 874 propensity score-matched patients undergoing TAVI at the Munich University Hospital from August 2018 to October 2020. From August 2018 to August 2019, a dual ProGlide strategy was used for vascular closure. From October 2019 to October 2020, a combination of one ProGlide and one FemoSeal was used. The primary endpoint was defined as access-related major vascular complications or bleeding ≥Type 2 according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria.

RESULTS

Patients in the dual ProGlide group (n=437) had a higher incidence of the primary endpoint than patients treated with one ProGlide and one FemoSeal (n=437; 11.4% vs 3.0%; p<0.001). Furthermore, they had a higher rate of closure device failure (2.7% vs 0.9%; p=0.044) and more often required unplanned surgery or endovascular treatment (3.9% vs 0.9%; p=0.004). The incidence of death did not differ significantly between groups (3.4% vs 1.6%; p=0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

A combined ProGlide and FemoSeal strategy might have the potential to reduce access-related vascular complications following TAVI.