比较 Manta 装置和 Perclose 装置用于关闭大口径动脉通路的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Journal of Vascular Access Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-08 DOI:10.1177/11297298231222314
Tayyab Cheema, Carmelo Venero, Shivam Champaneria, Sundas Younas, Muhammad Adil Hadeed Khan, Ibrar Anjum, Unaiza Ijaz, Sajjad Haider, Muhammad Shoaib Akbar, Mohammad Abdul-Waheed, Sameer Saleem
{"title":"比较 Manta 装置和 Perclose 装置用于关闭大口径动脉通路的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Tayyab Cheema, Carmelo Venero, Shivam Champaneria, Sundas Younas, Muhammad Adil Hadeed Khan, Ibrar Anjum, Unaiza Ijaz, Sajjad Haider, Muhammad Shoaib Akbar, Mohammad Abdul-Waheed, Sameer Saleem","doi":"10.1177/11297298231222314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Data comparing MANTA device with Perclose device for large bore arterial access closure is limited. We performed meta-analysis to compare safety and efficacy of the two devices in large (⩾14 Fr sheath) arteriotomy closure post-TAVR. Relevant studies were identified via PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases until June, 2022. Data was analyzed using random effect model to calculate relative odds of VARC-2 defined access-site complications and short-term (in-hospital or 30-day) mortality. A total of 12 studies (2 RCT and 10 observational studies) comprising 2339 patients were included. The odds of major vascular complications (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.51-1.92; <i>p</i> = 0.98); life threatening and major bleeding (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45-1.33; <i>p</i> = 0.35); minor vascular complications (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.63-2.99; <i>p</i> = 0.43); minor bleeding (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.57-1.56; <i>p</i> = 0.82); device failure (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49-1.11; <i>p</i> = 0.14); hematoma formation (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33-1.75; <i>p</i> = 0.52); dissection, stenosis, occlusion, or pseudoaneurysm (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.71-1.62; <i>p</i> = 0.73) and short-term mortality (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.55-1.84; <i>p</i> = 0.98) between both devices were similar. MANTA device has a similar efficacy and safety profile compared to Perclose device.</p>","PeriodicalId":56113,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular Access","volume":" ","pages":"15-21"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Manta device and Perclose device for closure of large bore arterial access.\",\"authors\":\"Tayyab Cheema, Carmelo Venero, Shivam Champaneria, Sundas Younas, Muhammad Adil Hadeed Khan, Ibrar Anjum, Unaiza Ijaz, Sajjad Haider, Muhammad Shoaib Akbar, Mohammad Abdul-Waheed, Sameer Saleem\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11297298231222314\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Data comparing MANTA device with Perclose device for large bore arterial access closure is limited. We performed meta-analysis to compare safety and efficacy of the two devices in large (⩾14 Fr sheath) arteriotomy closure post-TAVR. Relevant studies were identified via PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases until June, 2022. Data was analyzed using random effect model to calculate relative odds of VARC-2 defined access-site complications and short-term (in-hospital or 30-day) mortality. A total of 12 studies (2 RCT and 10 observational studies) comprising 2339 patients were included. The odds of major vascular complications (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.51-1.92; <i>p</i> = 0.98); life threatening and major bleeding (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45-1.33; <i>p</i> = 0.35); minor vascular complications (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.63-2.99; <i>p</i> = 0.43); minor bleeding (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.57-1.56; <i>p</i> = 0.82); device failure (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49-1.11; <i>p</i> = 0.14); hematoma formation (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33-1.75; <i>p</i> = 0.52); dissection, stenosis, occlusion, or pseudoaneurysm (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.71-1.62; <i>p</i> = 0.73) and short-term mortality (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.55-1.84; <i>p</i> = 0.98) between both devices were similar. MANTA device has a similar efficacy and safety profile compared to Perclose device.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56113,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Vascular Access\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"15-21\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Vascular Access\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298231222314\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular Access","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298231222314","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

将 MANTA 装置与 Perclose 装置用于大口径动脉通路闭合的比较数据有限。我们进行了荟萃分析,比较两种装置在 TAVR 术后大口径(鞘长 ⩾14 Fr)动脉切口闭合中的安全性和有效性。截至 2022 年 6 月,我们通过 PubMed、Cochrane 和 EMBASE 数据库找到了相关研究。采用随机效应模型对数据进行分析,计算出 VARC-2 定义的入路部位并发症和短期(院内或 30 天)死亡率的相对几率。共纳入了 12 项研究(2 项 RCT 研究和 10 项观察性研究),共 2339 名患者。主要血管并发症(OR 0.99,95% CI 0.51-1.92;P = 0.98)、危及生命的大出血(OR 0.77,95% CI 0.45-1.33;P = 0.35)、轻微血管并发症(OR 1.37,95% CI 0.63-2.99;P = 0.43)、轻微出血(OR 0.94,95% CI 0.57-1.56;P = 0.82)、装置故障(OR 0.74,95% CI 0.49-1.11;P = 0.14);血肿形成(OR 0.76,95% CI 0.33-1.75;P = 0.52);夹层、狭窄、闭塞或假性动脉瘤(OR 1.08,95% CI 0.71-1.62;P = 0.73)以及两种装置的短期死亡率(OR 1.01,95% CI 0.55-1.84;P = 0.98)相似。与 Perclose 装置相比,MANTA 装置具有相似的疗效和安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Manta device and Perclose device for closure of large bore arterial access.

Data comparing MANTA device with Perclose device for large bore arterial access closure is limited. We performed meta-analysis to compare safety and efficacy of the two devices in large (⩾14 Fr sheath) arteriotomy closure post-TAVR. Relevant studies were identified via PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases until June, 2022. Data was analyzed using random effect model to calculate relative odds of VARC-2 defined access-site complications and short-term (in-hospital or 30-day) mortality. A total of 12 studies (2 RCT and 10 observational studies) comprising 2339 patients were included. The odds of major vascular complications (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.51-1.92; p = 0.98); life threatening and major bleeding (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45-1.33; p = 0.35); minor vascular complications (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.63-2.99; p = 0.43); minor bleeding (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.57-1.56; p = 0.82); device failure (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49-1.11; p = 0.14); hematoma formation (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33-1.75; p = 0.52); dissection, stenosis, occlusion, or pseudoaneurysm (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.71-1.62; p = 0.73) and short-term mortality (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.55-1.84; p = 0.98) between both devices were similar. MANTA device has a similar efficacy and safety profile compared to Perclose device.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Vascular Access
Journal of Vascular Access 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
31.60%
发文量
181
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Vascular Access (JVA) is issued six times per year; it considers the publication of original manuscripts dealing with clinical and laboratory investigations in the fast growing field of vascular access. In addition reviews, case reports and clinical trials are welcome, as well as papers dedicated to more practical aspects covering new devices and techniques. All contributions, coming from all over the world, undergo the peer-review process. The Journal of Vascular Access is divided into independent sections, each led by Editors of the highest scientific level: • Dialysis • Oncology • Interventional radiology • Nutrition • Nursing • Intensive care Correspondence related to published papers is also welcome.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信