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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2020 Jan;6(1):111-124.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2019.08.013. Epub 2019 Oct 30.

Venous Vascular Closure System Versus Manual Compression Following Multiple Access Electrophysiology Procedures: The AMBULATE Trial

Collaborators, Affiliations
Free article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Venous Vascular Closure System Versus Manual Compression Following Multiple Access Electrophysiology Procedures: The AMBULATE Trial

Andrea Natale et al. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020 Jan.
Free article

Abstract

Objectives: This study compared the efficacy and safety of the VASCADE MVP Venous Vascular Closure System (VVCS) device (Cardiva Medical, Santa Clara, California) to manual compression (MC) for closing multiple access sites after catheter-based electrophysiology procedures.

Background: The VASCADE MVP VVCS is designed to provide earlier ambulatory hemostasis than MC after catheter-based procedures.

Methods: The AMBULATE (A Randomized, Multi-center Trial to Compare Cardiva Mid-Bore [VASCADE MVP] VVCS to Manual Compression in Closure of Multiple Femoral Venous Access Sites in 6 - 12 Fr Sheath Sizes) trial was a multicenter, randomized trial of device closure versus MC in patients who underwent ablation. Outcomes included time to ambulation (TTA), total post-procedure time (TPPT), time to discharge eligibility (TTDe), time to hemostasis (TTH), 30-day major and minor complications, pain medication usage, and patient-reported outcomes.

Results: A total of 204 patients at 13 sites were randomized to the device arm (n = 100; 369 access sites) or the MC arm (n = 104; 382 access sites). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Mean TTA, TPPT, TTDe, and TTH were substantially lower in the device arm (respective decreases of 54%, 54%, 52%, and 55%; all p < 0.0001). Opioid use was reduced by 58% (p = 0.001). There were no major access site complications. Incidence of minor complications was 1.0% for the device arm and 2.4% for the MC arm (p = 0.45). Patient satisfaction scores with duration of and comfort during bedrest were 63% and 36% higher in device group (both p < 0.0001). Satisfaction with bedrest pain was 25% higher (p = 0.001) for the device overall, and 40% higher (p = 0.002) for patients with a previous ablation.

Conclusions: Use of the closure device for multiple access ablation procedures resulted in significant reductions in TTA, TPPT, TTH, TTDe, and opioid use, with increased patient satisfaction and no increase in complications. (A Randomized, Multi-center Trial to Compare Cardiva Mid-Bore VVCS to Manual Compression in Closure of Multiple Femoral Venous Access Sites in 6 - 12 Fr Sheath Sizes [AMBULATE]; NCT03193021).

Keywords: ambulation; atrial fibrillation; catheter ablation; femoral access; hemostasis venous access; venous closure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Primum Non Nocere: Befriend the Access.
    Gautam S. Gautam S. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020 Jan;6(1):125-126. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2019.07.021. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020. PMID: 31971900 No abstract available.

Publication types

Associated data