Single Versus Double Perclose Vascular Closure Device in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Nikolaos Vythoulkas-Biotis, Theoni Theodoropoulou, Ioannis Gialamas, Antonios Lysandrou, Panteleimon Pantelidis, Georgios E Zakynthinos, Evangelos Oikonomou, Efstratios Katsianos, Manolis Vavuranakis, Gerasimos Siasos, Konstantinos Kalogeras
{"title":"Single Versus Double Perclose Vascular Closure Device in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Nikolaos Vythoulkas-Biotis, Theoni Theodoropoulou, Ioannis Gialamas, Antonios Lysandrou, Panteleimon Pantelidis, Georgios E Zakynthinos, Evangelos Oikonomou, Efstratios Katsianos, Manolis Vavuranakis, Gerasimos Siasos, Konstantinos Kalogeras","doi":"10.1177/00033197261422791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Complications related to vascular closure devices (VCDs) remain relatively common after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), while the optimal suture-based strategy remains a subject of debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single versus double Perclose VCD in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI. A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases to identify appropriate studies. The primary outcome was technical success; secondary outcomes included vascular and bleeding complications, bailout interventions, and all-cause mortality. Seven studies (3940 patients) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Technical success was comparable between the two strategies (relative risk [RR]: .89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .64-1.22), while the single Perclose strategy was associated with a lower risk of major vascular complications (RR: .61; 95% CI: .40-.92), major bleeding (RR: .28; 95% CI: .11-.73) and bailout surgical interventions (RR: .45; 95% CI: .24-.84). There were no differences in minor vascular complications and all-cause mortality. Stepwise closure with the upfront single Perclose strategy demonstrated comparable technical success and a more favorable safety profile regarding major vascular complications and bleeding compared with the double Perclose strategy. Additional randomized controlled trials are essential to validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":8264,"journal":{"name":"Angiology","volume":" ","pages":"33197261422791"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Angiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00033197261422791","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Complications related to vascular closure devices (VCDs) remain relatively common after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), while the optimal suture-based strategy remains a subject of debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single versus double Perclose VCD in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI. A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases to identify appropriate studies. The primary outcome was technical success; secondary outcomes included vascular and bleeding complications, bailout interventions, and all-cause mortality. Seven studies (3940 patients) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Technical success was comparable between the two strategies (relative risk [RR]: .89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .64-1.22), while the single Perclose strategy was associated with a lower risk of major vascular complications (RR: .61; 95% CI: .40-.92), major bleeding (RR: .28; 95% CI: .11-.73) and bailout surgical interventions (RR: .45; 95% CI: .24-.84). There were no differences in minor vascular complications and all-cause mortality. Stepwise closure with the upfront single Perclose strategy demonstrated comparable technical success and a more favorable safety profile regarding major vascular complications and bleeding compared with the double Perclose strategy. Additional randomized controlled trials are essential to validate these findings.

经股动脉主动脉瓣置入术中单瓣与双瓣血管闭合装置:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)后与血管关闭装置(vcd)相关的并发症仍然相对常见,而基于缝合线的最佳策略仍然是争论的主题。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评价单次与双次全闭合VCD在经股动脉TAVI患者中的疗效和安全性。在PubMed、Scopus和Cochrane数据库中进行文献检索,以确定合适的研究。主要成果是技术上的成功;次要结局包括血管和出血并发症、救助干预和全因死亡率。7项研究(3940例患者)符合纳入标准。两种策略之间的技术成功率相当(相对风险[RR]: 0.89; 95%可信区间[CI]: 0.64 -1.22),而单一Perclose策略与主要血管并发症(RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40 - 0.92)、大出血(RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.11 - 0.73)和紧急手术干预(RR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.24 - 0.84)的风险较低相关。在轻微血管并发症和全因死亡率方面没有差异。与双Perclose策略相比,前置单Perclose策略的逐步闭合在技术上取得了相当的成功,并且在主要血管并发症和出血方面具有更有利的安全性。额外的随机对照试验是验证这些发现的必要条件。
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
Angiology
Angiology 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
180
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: A presentation of original, peer-reviewed original articles, review and case reports relative to all phases of all vascular diseases, Angiology (ANG) offers more than a typical cardiology journal. With approximately 1000 pages per year covering diagnostic methods, therapeutic approaches, and clinical and laboratory research, ANG is among the most informative publications in the field of peripheral vascular and cardiovascular diseases. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 13 days
×
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
小红书