Arteriotomy Closure Devices for Cardiovascular Procedures: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Arterial puncture and sheath insertion by use of the modified Seldinger technique has become the standard method by which invasive cardiovascular procedures are performed.1 With improvement in techniques and devices, a significant number of patients with atherosclerotic disease are undergoing invasive vascular procedures. Approximately 7 million invasive cardiovascular procedures are performed worldwide each year, and this number is expected to increase with the aging of the population. The vast majority of these procedures are performed with femoral arterial access. Because the number of cardiovascular procedures performed via the femoral artery approach continues to increase, effective arterial hemostasis techniques are essential to high-quality patient care. In fact, vascular access complications, reported to be as high as 6% in some series, remain the leading cause of morbidity after a cardiac catheterization procedure.2 Manual compression has been considered the traditional technique to achieve closure of the arteriotomy site, requiring close observation and immobilization for success. Arteriotomy closure devices (ACDs) were introduced in 1995 to decrease vascular complications and reduce the time to hemostasis and ambulation. Subsequently, several generations of passive and active ACDs have been introduced that incorporate suture, collagen plug, nitinol clip, and other mechanisms to achieve hemostasis. According to a new Life Science Intelligence report entitled “2008 Global Vascular Closure Device Markets: US, Europe, Rest of World,” the global market for vascular closure devices will reach nearly $1 billion in 2013.3 Despite this widespread use of both passive and active ACDs, there are incomplete data on their safety and efficacy. Additionally, there are few published recommendations regarding the indications for the use of these devices, their comparative effectiveness versus manual compression, and the end points of clinical interest for patients undergoing vascular closure. Therefore, the present scientific statement provides an overview of vascular access and patient risk for …

[1]  I. Inglessis,et al.  A novel technique for 14 French arteriotomy closure after percutaneous aortic valvuloplasty using two Mynx closure devices. , 2009, Journal of interventional cardiology.

[2]  Salim Yusuf,et al.  Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. , 2009, American heart journal.

[3]  R. Erbel,et al.  A modified “Preclosure” technique after percutaneous aortic valve replacement , 2008, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[4]  Y. Jang,et al.  Percutaneous closure of femoral artery access sites in endovascular stent-graft treatment of aortic disease. , 2008, International journal of cardiology.

[5]  Fang-Shu Ou,et al.  Trends in the prevalence and outcomes of radial and femoral approaches to percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. , 2008, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[6]  R. Veasey,et al.  A randomised controlled trial comparing StarClose and AngioSeal vascular closure devices in a district general hospital – the SCOAST study , 2008, International journal of clinical practice.

[7]  T. Huber,et al.  Midterm outcomes of femoral arteries after percutaneous endovascular aortic repair using the Preclose technique. , 2008, Journal of vascular surgery.

[8]  F. Neumann,et al.  VIPER-2: A Prospective, Randomized Single-Center Comparison of 2 Different Closure Devices with a Hemostatic Wound Dressing for Closure of Femoral Artery Access Sites , 2008, Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists.

[9]  Samin K. Sharma,et al.  Clinical application of prophylactic percutaneous left ventricular assist device (TandemHeart) in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention using an arterial preclosure technique: single-center experience. , 2008, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[10]  S. I. Seldinger Catheter replacement of the needle in percutaneous arteriography. A new technique. , 1953, Acta radiologica. Supplement.

[11]  D. Scheinert,et al.  The safety and efficacy of an extravascular, water‐soluble sealant for vascular closure: Initial clinical results for Mynx™ , 2007, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[12]  H. Dauerman,et al.  Vascular closure devices: the second decade. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  F. Ling,et al.  Randomized controlled trial of topical hemostasis pad use for achieving vascular hemostasis following percutaneous coronary intervention , 2007, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[14]  J. Tijssen,et al.  Randomized Trial Comparing Same-Day Discharge With Overnight Hospital Stay After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Results of the Elective PCI in Outpatient Study (EPOS) , 2007, Circulation.

[15]  Bernardo J. Reyes,et al.  The Use of the D-STAT® Dry Bandage for the Control of Vascular Access Site Bleeding: A Multicenter Experience in 376 Patients , 2007, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[16]  F. Kahl,et al.  Propensity score analysis of vascular complications after diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention using thrombin hemostatic patch-facilitated manual compression. , 2007, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[17]  M. Matheny,et al.  A propensity analysis of the risk of vascular complications after cardiac catheterization procedures with the use of vascular closure devices. , 2007, American heart journal.

[18]  C. Rihal,et al.  Initial experience with the cardiva Boomerang™ vascular closure device in diagnostic catheterization , 2007, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[19]  C. Rihal,et al.  Ambulation 1 hour after diagnostic cardiac catheterization: a prospective study of 1009 procedures. , 2006, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[20]  C. O'shaughnessy,et al.  The StarClose® vascular closure system: Interventional results from the CLIP study , 2006, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[21]  M. Jaff,et al.  The safety and efficacy of the StarClose® vascular closure system: The ultrasound substudy of the CLIP study , 2006, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[22]  R. Caputo,et al.  Safety and efficacy of staple‐mediated femoral arteriotomy closure: Results from a randomized multicenter study , 2006, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[23]  W. Little,et al.  Propensity score analysis of vascular complications after diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention 1998–2003 , 2006, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[24]  R. Brindis,et al.  Risk of local adverse events following cardiac catheterization by hemostasis device use - phase II. , 2005, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[25]  C. O'shaughnessy,et al.  Clinical experience with a circumferential clip-based vascular closure device in diagnostic catheterization. , 2005, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[26]  R. Shaw,et al.  Angiographic predictors of femoral access site complications: Implication for planned percutaneous coronary intervention , 2005, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[27]  S. Pocock,et al.  Vascular complications associated with arteriotomy closure devices in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures: a meta-analysis. , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[28]  P. Vaitkus A meta-analysis of percutaneous vascular closure devices after diagnostic catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2004, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[29]  J. Tcheng,et al.  Incidence and predictors of major vascular complications after percutaneous coronary intervention in the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa platelet inhibitor era. , 2004, Journal of interventional cardiology.

[30]  M. Müllner,et al.  Arterial puncture closing devices compared with standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization: systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2004, JAMA.

[31]  R. Brindis,et al.  Risk of local adverse events following cardiac catheterization by hemostasis device use and gender. , 2004, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[32]  E. Benit,et al.  Immediate sheath removal after PCI using a Femostop® is feasible and safe. Results of a registry , 2003, Acta cardiologica.

[33]  T. Ryan,et al.  Predicting vascular complications in percutaneous coronary interventions. , 2003, American heart journal.

[34]  S. Sumitsuji,et al.  Clinical effectiveness of the Prostar XL suture-mediated percutaneous vascular closure device following PCI: results of the Perclose AcceleRated Ambulation and DISchargE (PARADISE) Trial. , 2003, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[35]  B. Chevalier,et al.  Effect of a closure device on complication rates in high‐local‐risk patients: Results of a randomized multicenter trial , 2003, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[36]  S. Sdringola,et al.  Outcome of access site in patients treated with platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in the era of closure devices , 2003, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[37]  H. Brunner-La Rocca,et al.  Comparison of costs and safety of a suture‐mediated closure device with conventional manual compression after coronary artery interventions , 2002, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[38]  T. Craven,et al.  Vascular closure devices in patients treated with anticoagulation and IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors during percutaneous revascularization. , 2002, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[39]  R. Nader,et al.  Clinical evaluation of SyvekPatch in patients undergoing interventional, EPS and diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures. , 2002, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[40]  J. Mckinsey,et al.  Anglographic Access Site Complications in the Era of Arterial Closure Devices , 2002, Vascular and endovascular surgery.

[41]  S. Cleary,et al.  Comparison of the FemoStop device and manual pressure in reducing groin puncture site complications following coronary angioplasty and coronary stent placement. , 2001, International journal of nursing practice.

[42]  G. Stone,et al.  Vascular complications after percutaneous coronary interventions following hemostasis with manual compression versus arteriotomy closure devices. , 2001, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[43]  M A Hlatky,et al.  American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on cardiac catheterization laboratory standards. A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. , 2001 .

[44]  B. Horne,et al.  Femoral arterial puncture management after percutaneous coronary procedures: a comparison of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between manual compression and two different vascular closure devices. , 2001, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[45]  A. Coats,et al.  Femoral haemostasis after transcatheter therapeutic intervention: a prospective randomised study of the angio-seal device vs. the femostop device. , 2000, International journal of cardiology.

[46]  H. Rickli,et al.  Early sheath removal after coronary artery interventions with use of a suture-mediated closure device: clinical outcome and results of Doppler US evaluation. , 2000, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[47]  A. Colombo,et al.  Effectiveness and complications of vascular access closure devices after interventional procedures. , 2000, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[48]  S. Yasuda,et al.  A Randomised Controlled Trial of Prostar PlusTMfor Haemostasis in Patients After Coronary Angioplasty , 2000 .

[49]  D. Baim,et al.  Suture-mediated closure of the femoral access site after cardiac catheterization: results of the suture to ambulate aNd discharge (STAND I and STAND II) trials. , 2000, The American journal of cardiology.

[50]  J. Spinelli,et al.  Suture closure of femoral arterial puncture sites after coronary angioplasty followed by same-day discharge. , 2000, American heart journal.

[51]  S. Yasuda,et al.  A randomised controlled trial of Prostar Plus for haemostasis in patients after coronary angioplasty. , 2000, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[52]  U. Gerckens,et al.  Management of arterial puncture site after catheterization procedures: evaluating a suture-mediated closure device. , 1999, The American journal of cardiology.

[53]  J. Chamberlin,et al.  Use of vascular sealing devices (VasoSeal and Perclose) versus assisted manual compression (Femostop) in transcatheter coronary interventions requiring Abciximab (ReoPro) , 1999, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[54]  S. Silber,et al.  Usefulness of collagen plugging with VasoSeal after PTCA as compared to manual compression with identical sheath dwell times. , 1998, Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis.

[55]  C. Simpfendorfer,et al.  Efficacy and Safety of a Hemostatic Puncture Closure Device With Early Ambulation After Coronary Angiography fn1 , 1998 .

[56]  G. Laarman,et al.  A randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by the radial, brachial and femoral approaches: the access study. , 1997, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[57]  P. Rudisill,et al.  Study of mechanical versus manual/mechanical compression following various interventional cardiology procedures. , 1997, The Journal of cardiovascular nursing.

[58]  M. Savage,et al.  Peripheral vascular complications after intracoronary stent placement: prevention by use of a pneumatic vascular compression device. , 1996, Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis.

[59]  R. Wilensky,et al.  Peripheral vascular complications following coronary interventional procedures , 1995, Clinical cardiology.

[60]  M. Leon,et al.  Rapid arterial hemostasis and decreased access site complications after cardiac catheterization and angioplasty: results of a randomized trial of a novel hemostatic device. , 1995, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[61]  A. Kastrati,et al.  Efficacy and safety of collagen implants for haemostasis of the vascular access site after coronary balloon angioplasty and coronary stent implantation , 1995 .

[62]  V. Flintoft,et al.  A single center randomized trial assessing use of a vascular hemostasis device vs. conventional manual compression following PTCA: what are the potential resource savings? , 1995, Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis.

[63]  A. Kastrati,et al.  Efficacy and safety of collagen implants for haemostasis of the vascular access site after coronary balloon angioplasty and coronary stent implantation. A randomized study. , 1995, European heart journal.

[64]  B. Meier,et al.  Collagen application versus manual compression: a prospective randomized trial for arterial puncture site closure after coronary angioplasty. , 1994, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[65]  J. Brinker,et al.  A multicenter randomized trial comparing a percutaneous collagen hemostasis device with conventional manual compression after diagnostic angiography and angioplasty. , 1993, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[66]  W. Burger,et al.  Collagen application for sealing of arterial puncture sites in comparison to pressure dressing: a randomized trial. , 1992, Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis.

[67]  J. Ross,et al.  ACC/AHA guidelines for cardiac catheterization and cardiac catheterization laboratories. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Ad Hoc Task Force on Cardiac Catheterization. , 1991, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[68]  L. Cohn,et al.  ACC/AHA guidelines for cardiac catheterization and cardiac catheterization laboratories. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Ad Hoc Task Force on Cardiac Catheterization. , 1991, Circulation.