Advantages and disadvantages of using a suture-mediated closure device

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25512/DIR.2019.13.2.03

For quoting:
Ivanov V.A., Sit’ko I.G., Bazanov I.S., Dokshokov G.R., Eroshenko A.V., Leonchuk K.A., Ivanov A.V., Tsymbal E.V., Zharikov S.B., Lokshina M.V., Rudenko B.A. "Advantages and disadvantages of using a suture-mediated closure device". Journal Diagnostic & interventional radiology. 2019; 13(2); 31-38.

authors:

Ivanov V.A.

Sit’ko I.G.

Bazanov I.S.

Dokshokov G.R.

Eroshenko A.V.

Leonchuk K.A.

Ivanov A.V.

Tsymbal E.V.

Zharikov S.B.

Lokshina M.V.

Rudenko B.A.

keywords:

percutaneous coronary intervention

vascular closure device

manual hemostasis

regional vascular complications

Abstract:

Background: the use of vascular closure devices (VCD) reduces the time of hemostasis, accelerates activation and discharge of the patient. Suture-mediated closure devices are closest in it's structure to the traditional surgical method of hemostasis. Advantages and disadvantages of these devices are mainly associated with design features. Stenoses, atherosclerosis, calcification and scars at the site of access are predictors of complications in the use of suturing devices. Although the effectiveness of these devices has been proven in several foreign studies, their data are not sufficient to draw clear conclusions.

Aim: was to evaluate advantages and disadvantages of using the suture-mediated closure devices after PCI.

Material and methods: study enrolled 208 adult patients, who underwent PCI in City Clinical Hospital named after M.P Konchalovsky, Moscow; FSBI «3 Central clinical military hospital n.a. A. A. Vishnevsky» Defense Ministry RF and SMRC preventive medicine of Department of Healthcare. Study group, where hemostasis after PCI was achieved by means of suture-mediated closure devices Perclose Pro Glide (Abbott Vascular), consisted of 90 patients, control group - 118 patients with manual hemostasis. Subjective feelings (pain, numbness, etc.) were assessed using a rating scale. The incidence of complications in the study group was 5.56%, in the control group - 6.78%. The comfort level of patients was higher in the study group

Results of the study: showed that the use of the Perclose device to achieve hemostasis after PC does not increase the frequency of regional vascular complications in compatison with manual hemostasis. But, at the same time, the use of VCD is an effective way to reduce the time of hemostasis, reduces the period of immobilization of the patient, which increases the patient's comfort and reduces patient's hospital stay.

References

1. Caputo RP: Currently approved vascular closure devices. Card Interv Today: 70-76, 2012.

2. Bechara CF, Annambhotla S, LinP H:Access site management with vascular closure devices for percutaneous transarterial procedures. J VascSurg 2010; 52:1682-1696. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs. 2010. 04.079.

3. Sheth RA, Walker TG, Saad WE, et al: Quality improvement guidelines for vascular access and closure device use. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014; 25: 73-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.jvir.2013.08.011.

4. Haas PC, Krajcer Z, Diethrich Edward B: Closure of large percutaneous access sites using the Prostar XL percutaneous vascular surgery device. J Endovasc Surg. 1999; 168-170.

5. Barbetta I, van den Berg J: Access and hemostasis: femora and popliteal approaches and closure devices — Why, what, when, and how? Semin Interv Radiol 2014; 31:353-360. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1055/s-0034-1393972.

6. Boschewitz J M, Pieper CC, Andersson M, et al: Efficacy and time-to-hemostasis of antegrade femoral access closure using the exoseal vascular closure device: A retrospective single-center study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2014; 48:585-591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ejvs.2014. 08.006.

7. Gutzeit A, van Schie B, Schoch E, et al: Feasibility and safety of vascular closure devices in an antegrade approach to either the common femoral artery or the superficial femoral artery. 2012; Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 35:1036-1040. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s0 0270012-0454-5.

8. Ward TJ, Weintraub J L: Vascular closure device update. Endovasc Today: 2015; 54-60.

9. Hon LQ, Ganeshan A, Thomas SM, et al: An overview of vascular closure devices: What every radiologist should know. Eur J Radiol. 2010; 73:181-190,. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.09.023.

10. Krajcer Z: The preclose technique for AAA repair. Endovasc Today: 2011; 46-54.

11. 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; 83:1658-63.

12. Baim DS, Knopf WD, Hinohara T, et al. Suture-mediated closure of the femoral access site after cardiac catheterization: results of the suture to ambulate and discharge (STAND I and STAND II) trials. Am J Cardiol. 2000; 85:864-9.

13. Fram D.B., Giri S., Jamil G., et al. Suture closure of the femoral arteriotomy following invasive cardiac procedures: a detailed analysis of efficacy, complications, and the impact of early ambulation in 1200 consecutive, unselected cases. Cathet Cardiovasc Interv. 2001; 53:163-73.

14. Balzer J.O., Scheinert D., Diebold T., et al. Postinterventional transcutaneous suture of femoral artery access sites in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease: a study of 930 patients. Cathet Cardiovasc Interv. 2001;53.