Duffin D, et al. Femoral arterial puncture management after percutaneous coronary procedures: A comparison of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between manual compression and two different vascular closure devices. J Invasive Cardiol. 2001;13(5):354-62.DESCRIPTION
Prospective, demographic, periprocedural, and late follow-up data for 1.500 patients undergoing PCI were collected from patients receiving femoral artery closure
Manual compression was used in 471 patients; the Perclose device in 492; and the Angio-Seal device in 537
Periprocedural, post-procedural and post-hospitalization endpoints were: 1) safety of closure method; 2) efﬁcacy of closure method; and 3) patient satisfaction
Patients treated with the Perclose device experienced more complications than those treated with the Angio-Seal device (p=0.008) or with manual compression (p=0.06)
Use of the Angio-Seal device had a higher rate of successful deployment and shorter hemostasis time with no increase in bleeding complications throughout follow-up
Overall, the Angio-Seal device performed better than the Perclose device or manual compression in reducing time to ambulation and length of stay among patients undergoing diagnostic procedures
Use of the Angio-Seal device achieved superior 30-day patient satisfaction and patient assessment of wound healing with less discomfort compared to the Perclose device
Prolonged bed rest and access site complications can be challenging for patients. This study shows a decrease in bed rest and complication rates. The use of a vascular closure device to achieve hemostasis increased patient satisfaction and comfort after PCI procedures.
Prospective randomized single center study conducted at Bryn Mawr Health, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania
200 patients who underwent PCI were randomized to receive vascular closure via manual compression, the Perclose ProGlide device, or the Angio-Seal VIP device
Patients evaluated pre-discharge or at 24 hours post-procedure. Patient satisfaction questionnaire given at discharge, and at one and four weeks post-procedure.
Procedural success was significantly greater with the Angio-Seal VIP device compared to the Perclose ProGlide device (100% versus 84%)
Time to hemostasis was significantly shorter with the Angio-Seal VIP device compared to the Perclose ProGlide device (5 minutes compared to 11 minutes) — not including the 10 Perclose ProGlide device failures
Time to ambulation was shortest with the Angio-Seal VIP device and longest with manual compression
Angio-Seal VIP had a high rate of deployment success, allowed for earlier ambulation compared to both compression and Perclose ProGlide and was associated with greater patient satisfaction compared with compression
No signiﬁcant difference in complication rates was found among the closure methods.
This is HCP only content