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
. 2020 Nov 3;9(21):e018042.
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.018042. Epub 2020 Oct 24.

Efficacy and Safety of ProGlide Versus Prostar XL Vascular Closure Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The RISPEVA Registry

Sergio Berti  1 , Francesco Bedogni  2 , Arturo Giordano  3 , Anna S Petronio  4 , Alessandro Iadanza  5 , Antonio L Bartorelli  6 , Bernard Reimers  7 , Carmen Spaccarotella  8 , Carlo Trani  9 , Tiziana Attisano  10 , Angela Marella Cenname  11 , Gennaro Sardella  12 , Roberto Bonmassari  13 , Massimo Medda  14 , Fabrizio Tomai  15 , Giuseppe Tarantini  16 , Eliano P Navarese  17   18   19 ; Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology‐GISE†
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Efficacy and Safety of ProGlide Versus Prostar XL Vascular Closure Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The RISPEVA Registry

Sergio Berti et al. J Am Heart Assoc. .

Abstract

Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requires large-bore access, which is associated with bleeding and vascular complications. ProGlide and Prostar XL are vascular closure devices widely used in clinical practice, but their comparative efficacy and safety in TAVR is a subject of debate, owing to conflicting results among published studies. We aimed to compare outcomes with Proglide versus Prostar XL vascular closure devices after TAVR. Methods and Results This large-scale analysis was conducted using RISPEVA, a multicenter national prospective database of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR treated with ProGlide versus Prostar XL vascular closure devices. Both multivariate and propensity score adjustments were performed. A total of 2583 patients were selected. Among them, 1361 received ProGlide and 1222 Prostar XL. The predefined primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, bleeding, and vascular complications assessed at 30 days and 1-year follow-up. At 30 days, there was a significantly greater reduction of the primary end point with ProGlide versus Prostar XL (13.8% versus 20.5%, respectively; multivariate adjusted odds ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65-0.99]; P=0.043), driven by a reduction of bleeding complications (9.1% versus 11.7%, respectively; multivariate adjusted odds ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.58-0.98]; P=0.046). Propensity score analysis confirmed the significant reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events and bleeding risk with ProGlide. No significant differences in the primary end point were found between the 2 vascular closure devices at 1 year of follow-up (multivariate adjusted hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.72-1.10]; P=0.902). Comparable results were obtained by propensity score analysis. During the procedure, compared with Prostar XL, ProGlide yielded significant higher device success (99.2% versus 97.5%, respectively; P=0.001). Conclusions ProGlide has superior efficacy as compared with Prostar XL in TAVR procedures and is associated with a greater reduction of composite adverse events at short-term, driven by lower bleeding complications. Registration Information URL: clini​caltr​ials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02713932.

Keywords: ProGlide; Prostar; transcatheter aortic valve replacement; vascular closure devices.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr Berti was a proctor for Abbott. Dr Navarese reports consulting fees/honoraria from Abbott, Astra‐Zeneca, Amgen, Bayer, and Sanofi‐Aventis; and grants from Abbott, and Amgen, outside the submitted work. Dr Giordano was a proctor for Abbott. The remaining authors have no disclosures to report.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart of the RISPEVA study.
VCD indicates vascular closure device.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Primary end point (cardiovascular death, bleeding and vascular complications) risk at 30‐day and 1‐year follow‐up unadjusted and adjusted with multivariate and propensity score methods.
Univariate, multivariate and propensity score–adjusted analyses are presented. The variables included in the multivariate model are age, surgical risk estimated with the Society of Thoracic Surgery score, coronary artery disease, frailty status, anticoagulant therapy, hemoglobin level, platelet count, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, obesity, New York Heart Association class at admission, hypertension, peripheral artery disease, sheath size, transcatheter aortic valve replacement device, and vascular calcifications. The list of covariates included in the propensity score are listed in Table S2. HR, hazard ratio; n, clinical events in the ProGlide and Prostar XL cohorts; and OR, odds ratio.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Primary end point (cardiovascular death, bleeding and vascular complications) risk at 30‐day follow‐up with ProGlide vs Prostar XL in prespecified subgroups.
CFA indicates common femoral artery; CKD, chronic kidney; N, number of events in each group; OR, odds ratio; and SFAR, sheath‐to‐femoral artery ratio.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Procedural vascular and bleeding complications with ProGlide vs Prostar XL.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Bleeding outcomes at 30 days among studies with ≥100 patients comparing ProGlide vs Prostar XL.
The size of the marker is proportional to the statistical weight of the study. Individual and pooled odds ratios (ORs) are reported.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Borz B, Durand E, Godin M, Tron C, Canville A, Litzler PY, Bessou JP, Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H. Incidence, predictors and impact of bleeding after transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the balloon‐expandable Edwards prosthesis. Heart. 2013;860–865. - PubMed
    1. Sardar MR, Goldsweig AM, Abbott JD, Sharaf BL, Gordon PC, Ehsan A, Aronow HD. Vascular complications associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Vasc Med. 2017;234–244. - PubMed
    1. Bavaria JE, Tommaso CL, Brindis RG, Carroll JD, Deeb GM, Feldman TE, Gleason TG, Horlick EM, Kavinsky CJ, Kumbhani DJ, et al. 2018 AATS/ACC/SCAI/STS expert consensus systems of care document: operator and institutional recommendations and requirements for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a joint report of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;340–374. - PubMed
    1. Biancari F, Romppanen H, Savontaus M, Siljander A, Makikallio T, Piira OP, Piuhola J, Vilkki V, Ylitalo A, Vasankari T, et al. MANTA versus ProGlide vascular closure devices in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Int J Cardiol. 2018;29–31. - PubMed
    1. Hoffmann P, Al‐Ani A, von Lueder T, Hoffmann J, Majak P, Hagen O, Loose H, Klow NE, Opdahl A. Access site complications after transfemoral aortic valve implantation—a comparison of Manta and ProGlide. CVIR Endovasc. 2018;20. - PMC - PubMed

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources