Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 11/2018

01-11-2018 | Clinical Investigation

Ultrasound Evaluation of Puncture Sites After Deployment of Two Different Types of Vascular Closure Devices: A Prospective Comparative Study

Authors: Young Jin Heo, Hae Woong Jeong, Jin Wook Baek, Sun Joo Lee, Hye Jung Choo, Hyun Seok Jung, Gi Won Shin, Jung Hwa Seo, Sung Tae Kim

Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology | Issue 11/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the ultrasonographic findings of femoral puncture sites and the complications of Perclose ProGlide® and FemoSeal™ after neurointerventional procedures.

Methods

In this prospective, single-center study, we randomly assigned 155 femoral puncture sites to treatment with Perclose ProGlide® or FemoSeal™. We hypothesized that the two different types of VCD cause different vascular changes. Ultrasonography of the femoral puncture sites was performed 24 h after the procedure and at an outpatient visit after 6 months. The intima–media thickness (IMT), vessel diameter, and minimal luminal diameter of the common femoral artery were measured; the perivascular soft tissue change and absorption of the hemostatic material were observed. The device failure rate and vascular complications associated with each device were also evaluated.

Results

Follow-up ultrasonography was performed at a median follow-up time of 187.0 days (range 147–240 days) after the initial ultrasonography. The IMT on follow-up ultrasonography was significantly higher in patients who received FemoSeal™ (P = 0.0000). Intimal hyperplasia and partial absorption of the hemostatic material were significantly more frequent in patients who received FemoSeal™. The vessel diameters on initial and follow-up ultrasonography were not significantly different, but the minimal diameter on follow-up ultrasonography was significantly lower in patients who received FemoSeal™. Device failure and pseudoaneurysms occurred at 9 and 3 puncture sites in patients who received Perclose ProGlide®, respectively.

Conclusions

Intimal hyperplasia was more frequently observed in patients who received FemoSeal™. However, more device failures and pseudoaneurysms occurred in patients who received Perclose ProGlide®.

Level of Evidence

Step 2 (level 2).
Literature
1.
Koreny M, Riedmüller E, Nikfardjam M, Siostrzonek P, Müllner M. Arterial puncture closing devices compared with standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;291:350–7.CrossRef
2.
Biancari F, D’andrea V, Di Marco C, Savino G, Tiozzo V, Catania A. Meta-analysis of randomized trials on the efficacy of vascular closure devices after diagnostic angiography and angioplasty. Am Heart J. 2010;159:518–31.CrossRef
3.
Sheth RA, Walker TG, Saad WE, Dariushnia SR, Ganguli S, Hogan MJ, Hohenwalter EJ, Kalva SP, Rajan DK, Stokes LS. Quality improvement guidelines for vascular access and closure device use. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014;25:73–84.CrossRef
4.
Treitl KM, Ali A, Treitl M. Safety and efficiency of femoral artery access closure with a novel biodegradable closure device: a prospective single-centre pilot study. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:2359–68.CrossRef
5.
Ku YM, Kim YO, Kim JI, Choi YJ, Yoon SA, Kim YS, Song SW, Yang CW, Kim YS, Chang YS. Ultrasonographic measurement of intima-media thickness of radial artery in pre-dialysis uraemic patients: comparison with histological examination. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005;21:715–20.CrossRef
6.
Michalis LK, Rees MR, Patsouras D, Katsouras CS, Goudevenos J, Pappas S, Sourla E, Kolettis T, Sioros L, Zotou P. A prospective randomized trial comparing the safety and efficacy of three commercially available closure devices (Angioseal, Vasoseal and Duett). Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2002;25:423–9.CrossRef
7.
McTaggart R, Raghavan D, Haas R, Jayaraman M. StarClose vascular closure device: safety and efficacy of deployment and reaccess in a neurointerventional radiology service. Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31:1148–50.CrossRef
8.
Cox T, Blair L, Huntington C, Lincourt A, Sing R, Heniford B. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing manual compression to vascular closure devices for diagnostic and therapeutic arterial procedures. Surg Technol Int. 2015;27:32–44.PubMed
9.
Geyik S, Yavuz K, Akgoz A, Koc O, Peynircioglu B, Cil B, Cekirge S, Saatci I. The safety and efficacy of the Angio-Seal closure device in diagnostic and interventional neuroangiography setting: a single-center experience with 1,443 closures. Neuroradiology. 2007;49:739–46.CrossRef
10.
Schulz-Schüpke S, Helde S, Gewalt S, Ibrahim T, Linhardt M, Haas K, Hoppe K, Böttiger C, Groha P, Bradaric C. Comparison of vascular closure devices vs manual compression after femoral artery puncture: the ISAR-CLOSURE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312:1981–7.CrossRef
11.
Hirano Y, Ikuta S, Uehara H, Nakamura H, Taniguchi M, Kimura A, Hayashi T, Kotani A, Oku K, Tsuji Y, Matsumoto M, Ishikawa K. [Diagnosis of vascular complications at the puncture site after cardiac catheterization]. J Cardiol. 2004;43:259–65.PubMed
12.
Banfić L, Vrkić Kirhmajer M, Vojković M, Strozzi M, Šmalcelj A, Lasić Z. Access site complications following cardiac catheterization assessed by duplex ultrasonography. Coll Antropol. 2008;32:385–90.PubMed
13.
Applegate RJ, Grabarczyk MA, Little WC, Craven T, Walkup M, Kahl FR, Braden GA, Rankin KM, Kutcher MA. Vascular closure devices in patients treated with anticoagulation and IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors during percutaneous revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:78–83.CrossRef
14.
Jaff M, Hadley G, Hermiller J, Simonton C, Hinohara T, Cannon L, Reisman M, Braden G, Fletcher D, Zapien M. The safety and efficacy of the StarClose® vascular closure system: the ultrasound substudy of the CLIP study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;68:684–9.CrossRef
15.
Choo HJ, Jeong HW, Park JY, Jin S-C, Kim ST, Seo JH, Lee SJ, Park YM. Ultrasonographic features of vascular closure devices: initial and 6-month follow-up results. Ultrasonography. 2014;33:283.CrossRef
16.
Ryu H, Jang JY, Kim TU, Lee JW, Park JH, Choo KS, Cho M, Yoon KT, Hong YM, Jeon UB. Morphologic features of puncture sites after ExoSeal vascular closure device implantation: changes on follow-up computed tomography. J Korean Soc Radiol. 2017;76:326–32.CrossRef
17.
Gargiulo NJ III, Veith FJ, Ohki T, Scher LA, Berdejo GL, Lipsitz EC, Menegus M, Greenberg M. Histologic and duplex comparison of the perclose and angio-seal percutaneous closure devices. Vascular. 2007;15:24–9.CrossRef
18.
Sanghi P, Virmani R, Do D, Erikson J, Elliott J, Cilingiroglu M, Matthews H, Kazi M, Ricker R, Bailey SR. A comparative evaluation of arterial blood flow and the healing response after femoral artery closure using angio-seal STS plus and StarClose in a porcine model. J Int Cardiol. 2008;21:329–36.CrossRef
19.
Hoffer EK, Bloch RD. Percutaneous arterial closure devices. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14:865–85.CrossRef
20.
Balzer JO, Scheinert D, Diebold T, Haufe M, Vogl TJ, Biamino G. Postinterventional transcutaneous suture of femoral artery access sites in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease: a study of 930 patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2001;53:174–81.CrossRef
21.
Nash JE, Evans DG. The Angio-Seal™ hemostatic puncture closure device. Herz. 1999;24:597–606.CrossRef
22.
Chiu AHY, Wal RV, Tee K, Knight R, Coles SR, Nadkarni S. Comparison of arterial closure devices in antegrade and retrograde punctures. J Endovasc Ther. 2008;15:315–21.CrossRef
23.
Fujihara M, Haramitsu Y, Ohshimo K, Yazu Y, Izumi E, Higashimori A, Yokoi Y. Appropriate hemostasis by routine use of ultrasound echo-guided transfemoral access and vascular closure devices after lower extremity percutaneous revascularization. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2017;32:233–40.CrossRef
24.
Vidi VD, Matheny ME, Govindarajulu US, Normand S-LT, Robbins SL, Agarwal VV, Bangalore S, Resnic FS. Vascular closure device failure in contemporary practice. JACC: Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:837–44.
25.
Theodos G, Raymond C, Becker MC, Thornton J, Ellis SG, Bhatt DL, Raymond RE. Arteriotomy closure device safety after percutaneous coronary intervention in the direct thrombin inhibitor era: a comparative study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;81:294–300.CrossRef
26.
Das R, Ahmed K, Athanasiou T, Morgan RA, Belli A-M. Arterial closure devices versus manual compression for femoral haemostasis in interventional radiological procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2011;34:723–38.CrossRef
27.
Park Y, Roh HG, Choo SW, Lee SH, Shin SW, Do YS, Byun HS, Park KB, Jeon P. Prospective comparison of collagen plug (Angio-Seal™) and suture-mediated (the Closer S™) closure devices at femoral access sites. Korean J Radiol. 2005;6:248–55.CrossRef
28.
Martin JL, Pratsos A, Magargee E, Mayhew K, Pensyl C, Nunn M, Day F, Shapiro T. A randomized trial comparing compression, perclose proglide™ and Angio-Seal VIP™ for arterial closure following percutaneous coronary intervention: the cap trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;71:1–5.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Ultrasound Evaluation of Puncture Sites After Deployment of Two Different Types of Vascular Closure Devices: A Prospective Comparative Study
Authors
Young Jin Heo
Hae Woong Jeong
Jin Wook Baek
Sun Joo Lee
Hye Jung Choo
Hyun Seok Jung
Gi Won Shin
Jung Hwa Seo
Sung Tae Kim
Publication date
01-11-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology / Issue 11/2018
Print ISSN: 0174-1551
Electronic ISSN: 1432-086X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-018-2056-3

Other articles of this Issue 11/2018

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 11/2018 Go to the issue

Clinical Investigation

Palliative Percutaneous Cryoablation and Cementoplasty of Acetabular Metastases: Factors Affecting Pain Control and Fracture Risk

Clinical Investigation

Antiplatelet Therapy is Associated with Stent Patency After Iliocaval Venous Stenting

Clinical Investigation

Comparison of Radiofrequency Ablation and Transarterial Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Caudate Lobe

Clinical Investigation

Thrombophilia Associated with Early Post-angioplasty Thrombosis of Dialysis Vascular Access

Clinical Investigation

Variants of Patterns of Intra- and Extra-prostatic Arterial Distribution of the Prostatic Artery Applied to Prostatic Artery Embolization: Proposal of a Classification

Clinical Investigation

Transarterial Bleomycin–Lipiodol Embolization (B/LE) for Symptomatic Giant Hepatic Hemangioma