Single or double suture-based devices with additional endovascular plug for vascular closure after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
Alessandro Comis, Giuliano Costa, Elena Dipietro, Valentina Frittitta, Sofia Sammartino, Mariachiara Calì, Luigi LA Rosa, Alessia Giaquinta, Pierfrancesco Veroux, Corrado Tamburino, Marco Barbanti
{"title":"Single or double suture-based devices with additional endovascular plug for vascular closure after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation.","authors":"Alessandro Comis, Giuliano Costa, Elena Dipietro, Valentina Frittitta, Sofia Sammartino, Mariachiara Calì, Luigi LA Rosa, Alessia Giaquinta, Pierfrancesco Veroux, Corrado Tamburino, Marco Barbanti","doi":"10.23736/S2724-5683.25.06859-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Procedure-related vascular and bleeding complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) still represents an important issue that impact on patients' mortality and morbidity. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of single or double suture-based devices (SBDs) combined with a plug-based device to obtain large bore arteriotomy hemostasis after transfemoral (TF) TAVI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive patients with available preprocedural computed tomography angiography (CTA) assessment undergoing 14Fr TF-TAVI from February 2018 to May 2023 at our Institution were considered. Patient receiving single or double SBD combined with a plug-based device were compared after propensity score matching. The primary outcomes were major vascular complications and type 2 to 4 bleeding due to endovascular closure system failure according VARC-3 criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among a total of 490 patients, 130 matched pairs of patients were compared. At 30 days, there was no difference in major vascular complications (0.0% vs. 2.3%, P=0.25) and in type 2 to 4 bleedings (4.6% vs. 6.2%, P=0.78) between two matched groups. No difference in 30-day (1.5% vs. 3.8%, P=0.45) and one-year (12.0% vs. 9.5%, P=0.60) all-cause death was observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A simpler strategy with single SBD had comparable safety and effectiveness to the use of double SBD when combined to a plug-base device after 14 Fr TF-TAVI.</p>","PeriodicalId":18668,"journal":{"name":"Minerva cardiology and angiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva cardiology and angiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-5683.25.06859-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Procedure-related vascular and bleeding complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) still represents an important issue that impact on patients' mortality and morbidity. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of single or double suture-based devices (SBDs) combined with a plug-based device to obtain large bore arteriotomy hemostasis after transfemoral (TF) TAVI.
Methods: Consecutive patients with available preprocedural computed tomography angiography (CTA) assessment undergoing 14Fr TF-TAVI from February 2018 to May 2023 at our Institution were considered. Patient receiving single or double SBD combined with a plug-based device were compared after propensity score matching. The primary outcomes were major vascular complications and type 2 to 4 bleeding due to endovascular closure system failure according VARC-3 criteria.
Results: Among a total of 490 patients, 130 matched pairs of patients were compared. At 30 days, there was no difference in major vascular complications (0.0% vs. 2.3%, P=0.25) and in type 2 to 4 bleedings (4.6% vs. 6.2%, P=0.78) between two matched groups. No difference in 30-day (1.5% vs. 3.8%, P=0.45) and one-year (12.0% vs. 9.5%, P=0.60) all-cause death was observed.
Conclusions: A simpler strategy with single SBD had comparable safety and effectiveness to the use of double SBD when combined to a plug-base device after 14 Fr TF-TAVI.
背景:经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)后与手术相关的血管和出血并发症仍然是影响患者死亡率和发病率的重要问题。本研究的目的是比较单缝线装置(sbd)或双缝线装置(sbd)联合塞式装置在经股动脉TAVI (TF)后获得大口径动脉切开止血的有效性。方法:纳入2018年2月至2023年5月在我院接受14Fr TF-TAVI的术前ct血管造影(CTA)评估的连续患者。在倾向评分匹配后,对接受单次或双次SBD联合插入式装置的患者进行比较。根据VARC-3标准,主要结局是主要血管并发症和血管内关闭系统失败导致的2至4型出血。结果:在490例患者中,共比较了130对匹配的患者。30天时,两组主要血管并发症(0.0% vs. 2.3%, P=0.25)和2 ~ 4型出血(4.6% vs. 6.2%, P=0.78)无差异。30天(1.5% vs. 3.8%, P=0.45)和1年(12.0% vs. 9.5%, P=0.60)全因死亡率无差异。结论:在14 Fr TF-TAVI后,单SBD的简单策略与双SBD联合塞基装置的安全性和有效性相当。