Aims: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes with the use of two haemostasis strategies after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) - one Prostar® vs. two ProGlide® devices (Abbott Vascular Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA). Methods and results: This was a retrospective study enrolling consecutive patients undergoing fully percutaneous transfemoral TAVI in our centre (Ferrarotto Hospital, Catania, Italy) from January 2012 to October 2014. All patients were dichotomised according to the vascular closure device (VCD) used for common femoral artery haemostasis (Prostar vs. ProGlide). All outcomes were defined according to VARC-2 criteria. The study population encompassed a total of 278 patients. Of these, 153 (55.1%) underwent TAVI using the Prostar, and 125 (44.9%) using two ProGlide devices. Vascular complications occurred in 48 patients (17.3%), being more frequent in the ProGlide group (11.8% vs. 24.0%, p=0.007). Patients who had TAVI using the ProGlide were also more likely to have a higher rate of percutaneous closure device failure (4.6% vs. 12.8%, p=0.013). Percutaneous peripheral intervention was performed in 13.7% and 28.0% of Prostar and ProGlide cases, respectively (p=0.003). Conclusions: Patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI had significantly lower rates of vascular complications and percutaneous closure device failures when the Prostar was used compared with two ProGlide devices.
Comparison of suture-based vascular closure devices in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation / Barbanti, M.; Capranzano, P.; Ohno, Y.; Gulino, S.; Sgroi, C.; Imme, S.; Tamburino, C.; Cannata, S.; Patane, M.; Di Stefano, D.; Todaro, D.; Di Simone, E.; Deste, W.; Gargiulo, G.; Capodanno, D.; Grasso, C.; Tamburino, C.. - In: EUROINTERVENTION. - ISSN 1774-024X. - 11:6(2015), pp. 690-697. [10.4244/EIJV11I6A137]
Comparison of suture-based vascular closure devices in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Gargiulo G.;
2015
Abstract
Aims: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes with the use of two haemostasis strategies after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) - one Prostar® vs. two ProGlide® devices (Abbott Vascular Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA). Methods and results: This was a retrospective study enrolling consecutive patients undergoing fully percutaneous transfemoral TAVI in our centre (Ferrarotto Hospital, Catania, Italy) from January 2012 to October 2014. All patients were dichotomised according to the vascular closure device (VCD) used for common femoral artery haemostasis (Prostar vs. ProGlide). All outcomes were defined according to VARC-2 criteria. The study population encompassed a total of 278 patients. Of these, 153 (55.1%) underwent TAVI using the Prostar, and 125 (44.9%) using two ProGlide devices. Vascular complications occurred in 48 patients (17.3%), being more frequent in the ProGlide group (11.8% vs. 24.0%, p=0.007). Patients who had TAVI using the ProGlide were also more likely to have a higher rate of percutaneous closure device failure (4.6% vs. 12.8%, p=0.013). Percutaneous peripheral intervention was performed in 13.7% and 28.0% of Prostar and ProGlide cases, respectively (p=0.003). Conclusions: Patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI had significantly lower rates of vascular complications and percutaneous closure device failures when the Prostar was used compared with two ProGlide devices.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
