Vascular closure devices: a review of their use after invasive procedures

Abstract

In the endovascular procedure setting, vascular closure devices (VCD) have emerged as an alternative to mechanical compression in order to achieve vascular hemostasis after puncture of the femoral artery. VCD are categorized based primarily on the principle mechanism of hemostasis, which includes biodegradable plug, suture, staples, or ultrasound. While VCD offer advantages over mechanical compression (shorter time to hemostasis and patient ambulation, high rate of patient satisfaction, and greater cost-effectiveness) complications related to the site of femoral access are still present. Efficacy and safety of VCD have been evaluated in a number of clinical trials, but to date there is still a lack of randomized clinical trials with sample sizes large enough to reveal superiority or non-inferiority of VCD compared with mechanical compression. Mechanical compression and VCD are effective and well tolerated in the setting of diagnostic procedures and procedures that do not use anticoagulation. For both methods, success rates are lower, and complication rates higher, in the setting of interventional procedures and when anticoagulation medications are used. Regardless of the device type, deployment failure is the major drawback of VCD. However, overall, meta-analysis data demonstrated that complications and success rates are not significantly different between mechanical compression and VCD. Current data suggest that the correct answer on whether or not to use VCD still remains in the operator domain where integration of clinical data and familiarity with a particular closure device plays a key role in achieving successful hemostasis and avoiding access site complication.