Vascular Closure Device Following Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 1.3
Alexander Dashwood, Francis J Ha, Stewart Healy, Robert Puchalski, Sing Huey Cheng, Brendan Tian, Emily Kotschet
{"title":"Vascular Closure Device Following Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Alexander Dashwood, Francis J Ha, Stewart Healy, Robert Puchalski, Sing Huey Cheng, Brendan Tian, Emily Kotschet","doi":"10.1111/pace.70051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation often involves large-diameter catheters, posing challenges for post-procedure hemostasis and discharge. The impact of Perclose Prostyle vascular closure device (VCD) on time to ambulation and vascular access complications in patients undergoing pulsed field ablation (PFA) is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients undergoing PFA for AF with 16.8 French (F) sheaths were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to Prostyle (Abbott Vascular, USA) or standard closure with a figure-of-eight suture (FO8) at a single center in an open-label design. A maximum of three VCDs were allowed. Pre-closure was achieved with deployment at 2 and 10 o'clock positions and a final Prostyle secured the second 6F short sheath. Ultrasound guidance was used in all patients. The primary end point was time to ambulation post-procedure. Secondary end points included major and minor periprocedural adverse events. Follow-up occurred up to 2 weeks post-procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty patients were randomized to undergo VCD (30 patients) or F08 suture (30 patients). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Time to ambulation was significantly reduced (215 ± 113 min) in the VCD group compared with the FO8 group (338 ± 71 min; p < 0.001). There were no major peri-procedural adverse events in either group. Rate of minor bleeding was significantly increased in the FO8 group (27%; 8/30) compared with none in the VCD group ((0%; 0/30; p = 0.005)). Rate of manual compression was numerically higher in the FO8 group (33%; 10/30) compared with the VCD group (10%; 3/30; p = 0.057). There were no differences in acute pain score, confidence in walking, overall patient satisfaction, or overall nurse satisfaction between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this randomized controlled trial, VCD with Prostyle reduced time to ambulation and reduced minor bleeding in patients undergoing PFA for AF.</p>","PeriodicalId":520740,"journal":{"name":"Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.70051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation often involves large-diameter catheters, posing challenges for post-procedure hemostasis and discharge. The impact of Perclose Prostyle vascular closure device (VCD) on time to ambulation and vascular access complications in patients undergoing pulsed field ablation (PFA) is uncertain.

Methods: Patients undergoing PFA for AF with 16.8 French (F) sheaths were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to Prostyle (Abbott Vascular, USA) or standard closure with a figure-of-eight suture (FO8) at a single center in an open-label design. A maximum of three VCDs were allowed. Pre-closure was achieved with deployment at 2 and 10 o'clock positions and a final Prostyle secured the second 6F short sheath. Ultrasound guidance was used in all patients. The primary end point was time to ambulation post-procedure. Secondary end points included major and minor periprocedural adverse events. Follow-up occurred up to 2 weeks post-procedure.

Results: Sixty patients were randomized to undergo VCD (30 patients) or F08 suture (30 patients). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Time to ambulation was significantly reduced (215 ± 113 min) in the VCD group compared with the FO8 group (338 ± 71 min; p < 0.001). There were no major peri-procedural adverse events in either group. Rate of minor bleeding was significantly increased in the FO8 group (27%; 8/30) compared with none in the VCD group ((0%; 0/30; p = 0.005)). Rate of manual compression was numerically higher in the FO8 group (33%; 10/30) compared with the VCD group (10%; 3/30; p = 0.057). There were no differences in acute pain score, confidence in walking, overall patient satisfaction, or overall nurse satisfaction between groups.

Conclusion: In this randomized controlled trial, VCD with Prostyle reduced time to ambulation and reduced minor bleeding in patients undergoing PFA for AF.

心房颤动脉冲场消融后血管闭合装置:一项随机对照试验。
心房颤动(AF)消融常涉及大直径导管,给术后止血和出院带来挑战。Perclose Prostyle血管关闭装置(VCD)对脉冲场消融(PFA)患者活动时间和血管通路并发症的影响尚不确定。方法:采用16.8 French (F)鞘的房颤PFA患者在开放标签设计中,按1:1的比例随机分配到Prostyle (Abbott Vascular, USA)或标准缝合的8字形缝合(FO8)。最多可携带三张光碟。在2点和10点位置进行预封井,最后使用Prostyle固定第二个6F短护套。所有患者均采用超声引导。主要终点为术后活动时间。次要终点包括主要和次要的围手术期不良事件。随访至术后2周。结果:60例患者随机分为VCD(30例)和F08缝合(30例)两组。两组间基线特征无显著差异。与FO8组(338±71 min, p < 0.001)相比,VCD组的行走时间明显缩短(215±113 min)。两组患者均未发生重大的围手术期不良事件。FO8组轻度出血发生率显著高于VCD组((0%;0/30;p = 0.005))(27%; 8/30)。FO8组的手压率(33%;10/30)高于VCD组(10%;3/30;p = 0.057)。两组间急性疼痛评分、行走信心、患者总体满意度和护士总体满意度均无差异。结论:在这项随机对照试验中,VCD与Prostyle减少了房颤PFA患者的活动时间,并减少了轻微出血。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信