Procedure-Related Complication Rates With the Use of Vascular Closure Devices; Does Size Only Matter? A Large Single Centre Retrospective Study.

Vascular and endovascular surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-22 DOI:10.1177/15385744241276688
Sifut Sethi, Jakub Michalski, Rand Moh'd Elayyan Al-Shboul, Frank Carey, Kelvin Tan, Tariq Ali
{"title":"Procedure-Related Complication Rates With the Use of Vascular Closure Devices; Does Size Only Matter? A Large Single Centre Retrospective Study.","authors":"Sifut Sethi, Jakub Michalski, Rand Moh'd Elayyan Al-Shboul, Frank Carey, Kelvin Tan, Tariq Ali","doi":"10.1177/15385744241276688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Our retrospective study aimed at assessing safety of vascular closure devices (VCDs) used in a large single-centre Interventional Radiology (IR) department. Complication and deployment failure rates using collagen-based (Angio-seal) and suture-based (ProGlide) devices for common femoral artery haemostasis were compared.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Data from VCDs deployed over a 6-year period were retrospectively analysed for patient age, procedure indication, puncture mode (antegrade/retrograde), sheath size, deployment failure and complications (haematoma, pseudoaneurysm formation, limb occlusion). Numerical and statistical analysis was undertaken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 1321 common femoral artery punctures in 1217 patients were closed using VCDs. Failure rate using ProGlide was significantly higher when compared with Angio-seal (<i>P</i>=<0.001) in sheath sizes ≤8 Fr. Heparin was not administered in embolisation procedures compared with angioplasty with or without stenting. Therefore, haematoma tended to occur more frequently following angioplasty without stenting (<i>P</i> = 0.003) and angioplasty with stenting (<i>P</i> = 0.001), when compared with embolisation. Deployment failure occurred more frequently when heparin was used during the procedure (<i>P</i> = 0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although complications relating to sheath size are well established in the literature, there remains a paucity of data assessing the impact of procedure specific factors when comparing VCDs. Our study challenges that size is the sole determinant of VCD success and invites a more holistic view of VCD deployment strategies. This study advocates continued research into the nuances of other potential confounding variables to optimise patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":94265,"journal":{"name":"Vascular and endovascular surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular and endovascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15385744241276688","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Our retrospective study aimed at assessing safety of vascular closure devices (VCDs) used in a large single-centre Interventional Radiology (IR) department. Complication and deployment failure rates using collagen-based (Angio-seal) and suture-based (ProGlide) devices for common femoral artery haemostasis were compared.

Materials and methods: Data from VCDs deployed over a 6-year period were retrospectively analysed for patient age, procedure indication, puncture mode (antegrade/retrograde), sheath size, deployment failure and complications (haematoma, pseudoaneurysm formation, limb occlusion). Numerical and statistical analysis was undertaken.

Results: Overall, 1321 common femoral artery punctures in 1217 patients were closed using VCDs. Failure rate using ProGlide was significantly higher when compared with Angio-seal (P=<0.001) in sheath sizes ≤8 Fr. Heparin was not administered in embolisation procedures compared with angioplasty with or without stenting. Therefore, haematoma tended to occur more frequently following angioplasty without stenting (P = 0.003) and angioplasty with stenting (P = 0.001), when compared with embolisation. Deployment failure occurred more frequently when heparin was used during the procedure (P = 0.005).

Conclusion: Although complications relating to sheath size are well established in the literature, there remains a paucity of data assessing the impact of procedure specific factors when comparing VCDs. Our study challenges that size is the sole determinant of VCD success and invites a more holistic view of VCD deployment strategies. This study advocates continued research into the nuances of other potential confounding variables to optimise patient outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用血管闭合器时与手术相关的并发症发生率;大小是否仅有影响?大型单中心回顾性研究。
导言:我们的回顾性研究旨在评估大型单中心介入放射科(IR)使用的血管闭合器(VCD)的安全性。研究比较了使用胶原蛋白(Angio-seal)和缝合线(ProGlide)装置进行股总动脉止血的并发症和部署失败率:回顾性分析了 6 年间部署的 VCD 数据,包括患者年龄、手术适应症、穿刺模式(前/后)、鞘的大小、部署失败率和并发症(血肿、假性动脉瘤形成、肢体闭塞)。结果:结果:总共有1217名患者的1321处股总动脉穿刺使用VCD闭合。与Angio-seal(P=P=0.003)和血管成形术加支架植入术(P=0.001)相比,使用ProGlide的失败率明显高于栓塞术。在手术过程中使用肝素时,部署失败的发生率更高(P=0.005):尽管与鞘的尺寸有关的并发症已在文献中得到证实,但在比较 VCD 时,评估手术特定因素影响的数据仍然很少。我们的研究对尺寸是 VCD 成功与否的唯一决定因素这一观点提出了质疑,并要求对 VCD 部署策略进行更全面的审视。本研究主张继续研究其他潜在混杂变量的细微差别,以优化患者预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Popliteal Vein Entrapment as a Rare Form of Popliteal Entrapment Syndrome. Challenging Conventional Treatment: Retrograde Implantation of a Covered Stent in Superior Mensenteric Artery Occlusion Case. Smaller Hospital Size is Associated With Higher Mortality in Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection. Acute Vascular Complications of VA-ECMO in COVID-19 Patients. Does COVID-19 Affect the Outcome? Gender-Specific Long-Term Results After Elective Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Depending on the Site of Distal Anastomosis.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1