Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2009 Dec;2(6):549-56.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.109.877407. Epub 2009 Oct 27.

Vascular closure device failure: frequency and implications: a propensity-matched analysis

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Vascular closure device failure: frequency and implications: a propensity-matched analysis

Sripal Bangalore et al. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009 Dec.

Abstract

Background: Vascular closure devices (VCDs) are effective in reducing the time to ambulation for patients undergoing cardiac catheterization procedures and in reducing the risk of vascular complications in selected patient cohorts. However, the frequency and consequence of failure of VCDs is not well defined.

Methods and results: From a prospective registry of consecutive patients undergoing cardiac catheterization at our center, 9823 patients who received either a collagen plug-based (Angio-Seal) or a suture-based (Perclose) VCD were selected for the study. VCD failure was defined as unsuccessful deployment or failure to achieve hemostasis. Major vascular complication was defined as any retroperitoneal hemorrhage, limb ischemia, or any surgical repair. Minor vascular complication was defined as any groin bleeding, hematoma (> or = 5 cm), pseudoaneurysm, or arteriovenous fistula. Any vascular complication was defined as either a major or minor vascular complication. Among the 9823 patients in the study, VCD failed in 268 patients (2.7%; 2.3% diagnostic versus 3.0% percutaneous coronary intervention; P=0.029). Patients with VCD failure had significantly increased risk of any (6.7% versus 1.4%; P<0.0001), major (1.9% versus 0.6%; P=0.006), or minor (6.0% versus 1.1%; P<0.0001) vascular complication compared with the group with successful deployment of VCD. The increased risk of vascular complication was unchanged in a propensity score-matched cohort.

Conclusions: In contemporary practice, VCD failure is rare, but when it does fail, it is associated with a significant increase in the risk of vascular complications. Patients with VCD failure should be closely monitored.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosures:

No conflict of interest for any of the authors for this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Incidence of vascular complications in patients with VCD failure compared to those with successful deployment of VCD. The incidence of any, major or minor vascular complication was substantially higher in the group with VCD failure compared to the group with successful deployment of VCD. VCD = vascular closure device.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Absolute standardized differences in baseline covariates between patients with and without VCD failure, before and after propensity score matching (post-match standardized difference <10% indicates excellent covariate balance).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Absolute standardized differences in baseline covariates between the Perclose® group and the Angio-Seal® group, before and after propensity score matching (post-match standardized difference <10% indicates excellent covariate balance).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Chevalier B, Lancelin B, Koning R, Henry M, Gommeaux A, Pilliere R, Elbaz M, Lefevre T, Boughalem K, Marco J, Dupouy P. Effect of a closure device on complication rates in high-local-risk patients: results of a randomized multicenter trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003;58:285–291. - PubMed
    1. Gerckens U, Cattelaens N, Lampe EG, Grube E. Management of arterial puncture site after catheterization procedures: evaluating a suture-mediated closure device. Am J Cardiol. 1999;83:1658–1663. - PubMed
    1. Kussmaul WG, 3rd, Buchbinder M, Whitlow PL, Aker UT, Heuser RR, King SB, Kent KM, Leon MB, Kolansky DM, Sandza JG., Jr Rapid arterial hemostasis and decreased access site complications after cardiac catheterization and angioplasty: results of a randomized trial of a novel hemostatic device. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25:1685–1692. - PubMed
    1. Nasu K, Tsuchikane E, Sumitsuji S. Clinical effectiveness of the Prostar XL suture-mediated percutaneous vascular closure device following PCI: results of the Perclose Accele Rated Ambulation and DISchargE (PARADISE) Trial. J Invasive Cardiol. 2003;15:251–256. - PubMed
    1. Slaughter PM, Chetty R, Flintoft VF, Lewis S, Sykora K, Beattie DM, Schwartz L. A single center randomized trial assessing use of a vascular hemostasis device vs. conventional manual compression following PTCA: what are the potential resource savings? Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1995;34:210–214. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms