Comparison of closure strategies after balloon aortic valvuloplasty: suture mediated versus collagen based versus manual

Abstract

Objectives: To compare complication rates of a collagen-mediated closure device, suture-mediated closure technique and manual compression for access site management following balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV).

Background: Vascular complications, including perforation, limb ischemia, ateriovenous fistulas, and pseudoaneurysm, are a common source of morbidity in patients undergoing BAV with large bore femoral artery access. The available options for closure of the access site include manual compression, suture-mediated closure devices, and recently reported collagen-based closure devices.

Methods: The study cohort consisted of 333 patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing BAV. Patients were divided into four groups according to access closure method: (1) Manual compression in 64 (19.2%); (2) Proglide 6 Fr in 162 (48.6%); (3) Angio-Seal 8 Fr in 89 (26.75%); and (4) Prostar 10 Fr in 18 (5.4%).

Results: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among the groups; although the Prostar group was had more males and the Angio-Seal group reported a lower incidence of renal failure and peripheral vascular disease. The Angio-Seal group had shorter procedural duration times compared with the other groups. In the Angio-Seal group (n = 47, 52.8%), a 10 Fr sheath size was primarily used to access the femoral artery, as compared with the manual compression and Proglide groups, which used a 12 Fr sheath in 29 (45.3%) and 66 patients (40.7%), respectively. A 13 Fr sheath was used in the Prostar group (n = 11, 61.1%), P < 0.001. The device failure rate was significantly higher in the Proglide group (n = 20, 12.3%) as compared with Angio-Seal (n = 3, 3.3%) and Prostar groups (n = 1, 5.5%), P = 0.03. Serious vascular complications requiring intervention were significantly higher in the manual compression group (n = 11, 17.1%) compared with the Proglide (n = 11, 6.7%), Angio-Seal (n = 5, 5.6%), and Prostar groups (n = 5, 1%), P < 0.001. The requirement for blood transfusion in the Angio-Seal group was significantly lower (n = 7, 7.8%) as compared with the manual compression (n = 20, 31.2%), Proglide (n = 35, 21.6%), and Prostar groups (n = 5, 27.7%), P < 0.001.

Conclusion: In our case series, collagen-based closure devices and suture-mediated closure devices had fewer vascular complications than manual compression for hemostasis following BAV. Patient selection for collagen-based versus suture-mediated closure requires further study.