经导管主动脉瓣置换术中两种血管关闭策略的比较:缝合和栓塞与单独缝合:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Cardiology Pub Date : 2025-09-12 DOI:10.1159/000548359
Hamzah Pratama Megantara, Iwan Dakota, Taofan Taofan, Suci Indriani, Ruth Grace Aurora, Suko Adiarto
{"title":"经导管主动脉瓣置换术中两种血管关闭策略的比较:缝合和栓塞与单独缝合:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Hamzah Pratama Megantara, Iwan Dakota, Taofan Taofan, Suci Indriani, Ruth Grace Aurora, Suko Adiarto","doi":"10.1159/000548359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Vascular complications following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) significantly contribute to morbidity and mortality. Conventional suture-based closure technique has been widely utilized for large-bore arterial access closure. Recent findings on hybrid strategy combining plug and suture-based devices has been on spotlight as it may improve the hemostatic efficacy and lower the access-site related complications and clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing a suture-based approach with a hybrid closure strategy (suture+plug) in aortic stenosis patients undergoing TAVR. Included studies were appraised following the Cochrane Risk of Bias and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tools. Forest plots were extracted in Review Manager with a main outcome of pooled-risk ratio (RR). The primary endpoint was the composite of access-site related vascular complications as defined by Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria whilst secondary end-points were in-hospital bleeding, closure device failure, mortality and unplanned endovascular or surgical intervention Results: Six eligible studies encompassing 2,064 patients were analyzed. Compared with suture-based closure, hybrid closure exhibited a lower rate of vascular complications [pooled-RR 0.46; 95% CI, 0.38-0.57; p <0.001], closure device failure [pooled-RR 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.96; p=0.04], in-hospital bleeding events [pooled-RR 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.55; p <0.001] and mortality [pooled-RR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.26-0.99; p=0.049]. Unplanned endovascular or surgical intervention was no different among two groups [pooled-RR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.17-1.06; p=0.07].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Hybrid vascular closure strategy offers better efficacy with lesser complications amongst patients undergoing TAVR, directing the clinical adoption of hybrid techniques, although further large-scale multicenter studies are warranted to confirm the benefit and optimize patient selection.</p>","PeriodicalId":9391,"journal":{"name":"Cardiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-25"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of two Vascular Closure Strategies in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Suture and Plug versus Suture alone: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Hamzah Pratama Megantara, Iwan Dakota, Taofan Taofan, Suci Indriani, Ruth Grace Aurora, Suko Adiarto\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000548359\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Vascular complications following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) significantly contribute to morbidity and mortality. Conventional suture-based closure technique has been widely utilized for large-bore arterial access closure. Recent findings on hybrid strategy combining plug and suture-based devices has been on spotlight as it may improve the hemostatic efficacy and lower the access-site related complications and clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing a suture-based approach with a hybrid closure strategy (suture+plug) in aortic stenosis patients undergoing TAVR. Included studies were appraised following the Cochrane Risk of Bias and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tools. Forest plots were extracted in Review Manager with a main outcome of pooled-risk ratio (RR). The primary endpoint was the composite of access-site related vascular complications as defined by Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria whilst secondary end-points were in-hospital bleeding, closure device failure, mortality and unplanned endovascular or surgical intervention Results: Six eligible studies encompassing 2,064 patients were analyzed. Compared with suture-based closure, hybrid closure exhibited a lower rate of vascular complications [pooled-RR 0.46; 95% CI, 0.38-0.57; p <0.001], closure device failure [pooled-RR 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.96; p=0.04], in-hospital bleeding events [pooled-RR 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.55; p <0.001] and mortality [pooled-RR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.26-0.99; p=0.049]. Unplanned endovascular or surgical intervention was no different among two groups [pooled-RR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.17-1.06; p=0.07].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Hybrid vascular closure strategy offers better efficacy with lesser complications amongst patients undergoing TAVR, directing the clinical adoption of hybrid techniques, although further large-scale multicenter studies are warranted to confirm the benefit and optimize patient selection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9391,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-25\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000548359\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000548359","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

摘要

导言:经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)后的血管并发症是导致发病率和死亡率的重要因素。传统的缝合缝合技术已广泛应用于大口径动脉通路的缝合。近期研究发现,将塞和缝线结合的混合策略可以提高止血效果,降低通路相关并发症和临床结果,因此备受关注。方法:我们进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较了在主动脉瓣狭窄患者行TAVR时,基于缝线的方法与混合缝合策略(缝线+塞)的研究。采用Cochrane偏倚风险和Newcastle-Ottawa量表对纳入的研究进行评价。在Review Manager中提取森林样地,主要结果为合并风险比(pool- risk ratio, RR)。主要终点是瓣膜学术研究联盟标准定义的与通路部位相关的血管并发症的综合,而次要终点是院内出血、关闭装置失效、死亡率和意外的血管内或手术干预。结果:6项符合条件的研究包括2064名患者。与基于缝线的缝合相比,混合型缝合的血管并发症发生率较低[合并rr = 0.46;95% ci, 0.38-0.57;结论:混合血管闭合策略在TAVR患者中具有更好的疗效和更少的并发症,指导临床采用混合技术,尽管需要进一步的大规模多中心研究来证实其益处并优化患者选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Comparison of two Vascular Closure Strategies in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Suture and Plug versus Suture alone: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: Vascular complications following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) significantly contribute to morbidity and mortality. Conventional suture-based closure technique has been widely utilized for large-bore arterial access closure. Recent findings on hybrid strategy combining plug and suture-based devices has been on spotlight as it may improve the hemostatic efficacy and lower the access-site related complications and clinical outcomes.

Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing a suture-based approach with a hybrid closure strategy (suture+plug) in aortic stenosis patients undergoing TAVR. Included studies were appraised following the Cochrane Risk of Bias and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tools. Forest plots were extracted in Review Manager with a main outcome of pooled-risk ratio (RR). The primary endpoint was the composite of access-site related vascular complications as defined by Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria whilst secondary end-points were in-hospital bleeding, closure device failure, mortality and unplanned endovascular or surgical intervention Results: Six eligible studies encompassing 2,064 patients were analyzed. Compared with suture-based closure, hybrid closure exhibited a lower rate of vascular complications [pooled-RR 0.46; 95% CI, 0.38-0.57; p <0.001], closure device failure [pooled-RR 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.96; p=0.04], in-hospital bleeding events [pooled-RR 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.55; p <0.001] and mortality [pooled-RR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.26-0.99; p=0.049]. Unplanned endovascular or surgical intervention was no different among two groups [pooled-RR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.17-1.06; p=0.07].

Conclusion: Hybrid vascular closure strategy offers better efficacy with lesser complications amongst patients undergoing TAVR, directing the clinical adoption of hybrid techniques, although further large-scale multicenter studies are warranted to confirm the benefit and optimize patient selection.

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
Cardiology
Cardiology 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
56
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: ''Cardiology'' features first reports on original clinical, preclinical and fundamental research as well as ''Novel Insights from Clinical Experience'' and topical comprehensive reviews in selected areas of cardiovascular disease. ''Editorial Comments'' provide a critical but positive evaluation of a recent article. Papers not only describe but offer critical appraisals of new developments in non-invasive and invasive diagnostic methods and in pharmacologic, nutritional and mechanical/surgical therapies. Readers are thus kept informed of current strategies in the prevention, recognition and treatment of heart disease. Special sections in a variety of subspecialty areas reinforce the journal''s value as a complete record of recent progress for all cardiologists, internists, cardiac surgeons, clinical physiologists, pharmacologists and professionals in other areas of medicine interested in current activity in cardiovascular diseases.
×
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