The utilization of single versus double Perclose devices for transfemoral aortic valve replacement access site closure: Insights from Cleveland Clinic Aortic Valve Center. Issue 2 (12th November 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bazarbashi, Najdat; Ahuja, Keerat; Gad, Mohamed M.; Sammour, Yasser M.; Kaur, Manpreet; Karrthik, Antonette; Saad, Anas M.; Khubber, Shameer; Dhaliwal, Kamalpreet; Mick, Stephanie L.; Navia, Jose L.; Puri, Rishi; Reed, Grant W.; Krishnaswamy, Amar; Kapadia, Samir R.
• Is Part Of: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions. Volume 96:Issue 2(2020)
• Page Start: 442
• Page End: 447
• Publication Date: 2019-11-12
• Subjects: single closure device -- transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement -- vascular complications; Heart -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Cardiac catheterization -- Periodicals; 616.1207572
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.28585
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1522-1946

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Percutaneous femoral access is the preferred access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The majority of experienced TAVR centers use two 6F Perclose ProGlide™ devices to close the primary vascular access site, deployed prior to upsizing sheath size with closure completed at the end of the case (the "preclose" approach). A strategy of utilizing a single Perclose device to preclose may have advantages including fewer complications, complexity, and cost, but the safety of this is unknown. This study examines in the safety and efficacy of using a single Perclose versus double Perclose for perclosure of large bore access during TAVR. Methods: Patients undergoing Transfemoral (TF) TAVR from January 2014 to December 2017 within the Cleveland Clinic Aortic Valve Center were identified. A retrospective review of medical charts was conducted. Vascular complications were defined according to the VARC‐2 criteria. Results: A total of 740 patients were included; 487 (65.8%) received a single Perclose device while 253 (34.2%) received double Perclose devices. Baseline characteristics were similar with no differences between the single versus double Perclose groups, respectively. The access sheath size was similar in both groups with (14, 16, and 18 F) being the most common sizes utilized. Of the total 487 patients with single Perclose, 75.6% needed additional closure device (AngioSeal). With double Perclose strategy, additional closure device (AngioSeal) was used in 40.3% patients with 470 (63.5%) patients being successfully perclosed. Vascular complication rates including hematoma, stenosis requiring stenting, pseudoaneurysm, and other major vascular complications were similar between both groups. Conclusion: Single 6F ProGlide use for preclosure is a safe strategy for TF TAVR using the S3 valve. Additional closure device was not needed in almost one‐quarter of the patients. When necessary, residual bleeding can be controlled with the AngioSeal Device at the end of the procedure. This single device preclose strategy can help to reduce the cost of TAVR procedure without increasing risk.