{"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.
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