Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions · 2021
Manta versus Perclose ProGlide vascular closure device after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Initial experience from a large European center.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Dumpies Oliver, Kitamura Mitsunobu, Majunke Nicolas, Hartung Phillip, Haag Anna, Wilde Johannes, Desch Steffen, Sandri Marcus, Crusius Lisa, Noack Thilo, Kiefer Philipp, Leontyev Sergey, Borger Michael, Thiele Holger, Holzhey David, Abdel-Wahab Mohamed
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Vascular and bleeding complications are common after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and are associated with worse outcomes. The plug-based Manta (M) vascular closure device (VCD) is a novel option to achieve haemostasis for large-bore arterial access sites.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare vascular and bleeding complications between the M-VCD and the established suture-based Perclose ProGlide (P)-VCD.
METHODS: From February to September 2019 a total of 578 patients underwent transfemoral TAVI at a single high-volume centre. Access site closure was performed using M-VCD in 195 patients (33.7%) and P-VCD in 383 patients (66.3%). We assessed vascular and access site-related complications as well as bleeding events according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definition.
RESULTS: Overall vascular complications occurred less frequently in the M-VCD group (10.7% vs. 19.0%, p = 0.011) driven by a significantly lower rate of major vascular events (2.0% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.025). Access site-related complications were significantly less frequent in the M-VCD cohort (10.7% vs. 16.6%, p = 0.048). The M-VCD was associated with significantly lower rates of major (0.5% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.009) and life-threatening bleeding (0% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.032). In multivariable analysis, the use of M-VCD was the only independent predictor of vascular complications (odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.91, p = 0.022).
CONCLUSIONS: The M-VCD was associated with a reduction of vascular and access-site complications as well as severe bleeding after transfemoral TAVI compared to the P-VCD in this observational study.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare vascular and bleeding complications between the M-VCD and the established suture-based Perclose ProGlide (P)-VCD.
METHODS: From February to September 2019 a total of 578 patients underwent transfemoral TAVI at a single high-volume centre. Access site closure was performed using M-VCD in 195 patients (33.7%) and P-VCD in 383 patients (66.3%). We assessed vascular and access site-related complications as well as bleeding events according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definition.
RESULTS: Overall vascular complications occurred less frequently in the M-VCD group (10.7% vs. 19.0%, p = 0.011) driven by a significantly lower rate of major vascular events (2.0% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.025). Access site-related complications were significantly less frequent in the M-VCD cohort (10.7% vs. 16.6%, p = 0.048). The M-VCD was associated with significantly lower rates of major (0.5% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.009) and life-threatening bleeding (0% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.032). In multivariable analysis, the use of M-VCD was the only independent predictor of vascular complications (odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.91, p = 0.022).
CONCLUSIONS: The M-VCD was associated with a reduction of vascular and access-site complications as well as severe bleeding after transfemoral TAVI compared to the P-VCD in this observational study.