The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2023
Vascular Complications in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Plug-Based vs Suture-Based Closure Devices.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zornitzki Lior, Zahler David, Frydman Shir, Itach Tamar, Ben-Shoshan Jeremy, Halkin Amir, Bazan Samuel, Arbel Yaron, Konigstein Maayan, Finkelstein Ariel, Banai Shmuel, Steinvil Arie
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There are conflicting data regarding the efficacy and safety of suture vs plug-based vascular closure devices (VCDs) for large-bore catheter management in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We compared the rates of vascular complications (VCs) associated with 2 commonly used VCDs in a large cohort of patients undergoing TAVR.
METHODS: We conducted a single-centre, all-comer, prospective registry study, enrolling patients undergoing TAVR for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) between the years 2009 and 2022. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients undergoing closure of the femoral access point using the MANTA VCD (M-VCD) (Teleflex, Wayne, PA) vs the ProGlide VCD (P-VCD) (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, IL). The main outcome measures were researcher adjudicated events of VARC-2 defined major and minor VCs.
RESULTS: Overall, 2368 patients were enrolled in the registry; 1315 (51.0% male, 81.0 ± 7.0 years) patients were included in the current analysis. P-VCD was used in 813 patients, whereas M-VCD was used in 502 patients. In-hospital VCs were more frequent in the M-VCD vs the P-VCD group (17.3% vs 9.8%; P < 0.001). This outcome was mainly driven by elevated rates of minor VCs in the M-VCD group, whereas no significant difference was observed for major VCs (15.1% vs 8.4%; P < 0.001 and 2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.33, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TAVR for severe AS, M-VCD was associated with higher rates of VCs. This outcome was mainly driven by minor VCs. The rate of major VCs was low in both groups.
METHODS: We conducted a single-centre, all-comer, prospective registry study, enrolling patients undergoing TAVR for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) between the years 2009 and 2022. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients undergoing closure of the femoral access point using the MANTA VCD (M-VCD) (Teleflex, Wayne, PA) vs the ProGlide VCD (P-VCD) (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, IL). The main outcome measures were researcher adjudicated events of VARC-2 defined major and minor VCs.
RESULTS: Overall, 2368 patients were enrolled in the registry; 1315 (51.0% male, 81.0 ± 7.0 years) patients were included in the current analysis. P-VCD was used in 813 patients, whereas M-VCD was used in 502 patients. In-hospital VCs were more frequent in the M-VCD vs the P-VCD group (17.3% vs 9.8%; P < 0.001). This outcome was mainly driven by elevated rates of minor VCs in the M-VCD group, whereas no significant difference was observed for major VCs (15.1% vs 8.4%; P < 0.001 and 2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.33, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TAVR for severe AS, M-VCD was associated with higher rates of VCs. This outcome was mainly driven by minor VCs. The rate of major VCs was low in both groups.