Korean J Radiol.  2006 Mar;7(1):35-40. 10.3348/kjr.2006.7.1.35.

Efficacy of Femoral Vascular Closure Devices in Patients Treated with Anticoagulant, Abciximab or Thrombolytics during Percutaneous Endovascular Procedures

• Kim HY
• Choo SW
• Roh HG
• Han H
• Kim SS
• Lee JY
• Park YR
• Lee SH
• Shin SW
• Park KB
• Do YS
• Cho SK
• Lee IH
• Kim SM
• Byun HS
• Jeon P

• KMID: 753914
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2006.7.1.35

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
This study assessed the outcomes of using vascular closure devices following percutaneous transfemoral endovascular procedures in the patients who were treated with heparin, abciximab or thrombolytics (urokinase or t-PA) during the procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From March 28, 2003 to August 31, 2004, we conducted a prospective and randomized study in which 1,676 cases of 1,180 patients were treated with one of the two different closure devices (the collagen plug device was Angio-SealTM; the suture-mediated closure device was The Closer STM) at the femoral access site after instituting percutaneous endovascular procedures. Among the 1,676 cases, 108 cases (the drug group) were treated with heparin only (n = 94), thrombolytics only (n = 10), heparin and thrombolytics (n = 3), or abciximab and thrombolytics (n = 1) during the procedures; 1,568 cases (the no-drug group) were treated without any medication. We compared the efficacy and complications between the two groups. Of the drug group, 42 cases underwent arterial closures with the collagen plug devices and 66 cases underwent arterial closures with the suture-mediated closure devices. We also compared the efficacy and complications between these two groups. RESULTS: The immediate hemostasis rates were 92.9% (1,456/1,568) in the no-drug group and 91.7% (99/108) in the drug group. Early complications occurred in four cases of the drug group. These included two episodes of rebleeding with using the Closer S, which required manual compression for at least 10 minutes, and two episodes of minor oozing with using one Angio-Seal and one Closer S, which required two hours of additional bed rest. There was no late complication. So, the total success rates were 90.8% (1,423/1,568) in the no-drug group and 88.0% (95/108) in the drug group. These results were not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.34). In the drug group, the difference of the successful hemostasis rate between the collagen plug devices and the suture-mediated devices was also not statistically significant (92.9% vs. 84.8%, respectively; p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: Arterial closure of the femoral access site with using vascular closure devices is both safe and effective, even in the patients who received heparin, abciximab or thrombolytics.

Keyword

Vascular closure device; anticoagulants; abciximab; thrombolytics; complications

MeSH Terms

Sutures
Prospective Studies
Postoperative Complications
Middle Aged
Male
Immunoglobulin Fab Fragments/pharmacology/*therapeutic use
Humans
Hemostatic Techniques/*instrumentation
Hemostasis/*drug effects
Fibrinolytic Agents/pharmacology/*therapeutic use
Femoral Artery/*surgery
Female
Collagen
Anticoagulants/pharmacology/*therapeutic use
Antibodies, Monoclonal/pharmacology/*therapeutic use

Reference

1. Kahn ZM, Kumar M, Hollander G, Frankel R. Safety and efficacy of the Perclose suture-mediated closure device after diagnostic and interventional catheterizations in a large consecutive population. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2002. 55:8–13.

2. Kent KC, McArdle CR, Kennedy B, Baim DS, Anninos E, Skillman JJ. A prospective study of the clinical outcome of femoral pseudoaneurysms and arteriovenous fistulas induced by arterial puncture. J Vasc Surg. 1993. 17:125–131. discussion 131-123.

3. Kresowik TF, Khoury MD, Miller BV, Winniford MD, Shamma AR, Sharp WJ, et al. A prospective study of the incidence and natural history of femoral vascular complications after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. J Vasc Surg. 1991. 13:328–333. discussion 333-325.

4. Rickli H, Unterweger M, Sutsch G, Brunner-La Rocca HP, Sagmeister M, Ammann P, et al. Comparison of costs and safety of a suture-mediated closure device with conventional manual compression after coronary artery interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2002. 57:297–302.

5. Katzenschlager R, Ugurluoglu A, Ahmadi A, Hulsmann M, Koppensteiner R, Larch E, et al. Incidence of pseudoaneurysm after diagnostic and therapeutic angiography. Radiology. 1995. 195:463–466.

6. Gerckens U, Cattelaens N, Lampe EG, Grube E. Management of arterial puncture site after catheterization procedures: evaluating a suture-mediated closure device. Am J Cardiol. 1999. 83:1658–1663.

7. Gerckens U, Cattelaens N, Muller R, Lampe EG, Grube E. Percutaneous suture of femoral artery access sites after diagnostic heart catheterization and or coronary intervention. Safety and effectiveness of a new arterial suture technic. Herz. 1998. 23:27–34.

8. Baim DS, Knopf WD, Hinohara T, Schwarten DE, Schatz RA, Pinkerton CA, et al. Suture-mediated closure of the femoral access site after cardiac catheterization: results of the suture to ambulate aNd discharge (STAND I and STAND II) trials. Am J Cardiol. 2000. 85:864–869.

9. Wetter DR, Rickli H, von Smekal A, Amann FW. Early sheath removal after coronary artery interventions with use of a suture-mediated closure device: clinical outcome and results of Doppler US evaluation. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000. 11:1033–1037.

10. Koreny M, Riedmuller E, Nikfardjam M, Siostrzonek P, Mullner M. Arterial puncture closing devices compared with standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004. 291:350–357.

11. Michalis LK, Rees MR, Patsouras D, Katsouras CS, Goudevenos J, Pappas S, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing the safety and efficacy of three commercially available closure devices (Angio-Seal, Vasoseal and Duett). Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2002. 25:423–429.

12. O'Sullivan GJ, Buckenham TM, Belli AM. The use of the angio-seal haemostatic puncture closure device in high risk patients. Clin Radiol. 1999. 54:51–55.

13. Grollman JH Jr. Percutaneous arterial access closure: now do we have the be all and end all? not yet! Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2000. 49:148–149.

14. Assali AR, Sdringola S, Moustapha A, Ghani M, Salloum J, Schroth G, et al. Outcome of access site in patients treated with platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in the era of closure devices. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003. 58:1–5.

15. Simon A, Bumgarner B, Clark K, Israel S, Bogart MA. Manual versus mechanical compression for femoral artery hemostasis after cardiac catheterization. Am J Crit Care. 1998. 7:308–313.

16. Bogart MA. Time to hemostasis: a comparison of manual versus mechanical compression of the femoral artery. Am J Crit Care. 1995. 4:149–156.

17. Colapinto RF, Harty PW. Femoral artery compression device for outpatient angiography. Radiology. 1988. 166:890–891.

18. Heintzen MP, Strauer BE. Peripheral arterial complications after heart catheterization. Herz. 1998. 23:4–20.

19. Pache J, Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Gawaz M, Neumann FJ, Seyfarth M, et al. Clopidogrel therapy in patients undergoing coronary stenting: value of a high-loading-dose regimen. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2002. 55:436–441.

20. Resnic FS, Blake GJ, Ohno-Machado L, Selwyn AP, Popma JJ, Rogers C. Vascular closure devices and the risk of vascular complications after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients receiving glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors. Am J Cardiol. 2001. 88:493–496.

21. Popma JJ, Satler LF, Pichard AD, Kent KM, Campbell A, Chuang YC, et al. Vascular complications after balloon and new device angioplasty. Circulation. 1993. 88:1569–1578.

22. Omoigui NA, Califf RM, Pieper K, Keeler G, O'Hanesian MA, Berdan LG, et al. Peripheral vascular complications in the Coronary Angioplasty Versus Excisional Atherectomy Trial (CAVEAT-I). J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995. 26:922–930.

23. Lumsden AB, Miller JM, Kosinski AS, Allen RC, Dodson TF, Salam AA, et al. A prospective evaluation of surgically treated groin complications following percutaneous cardiac procedures. Am Surg. 1994. 60:132–137.

24. Applegate RJ, Grabarczyk MA, Little WC, Craven T, Walkup M, Kahl FR, et al. Vascular closure devices in patients treated with anticoagulation and IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors during percutaneous revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002. 40:78–83.

25. Duffin DC, Muhlestein JB, Allisson SB, Horne BD, Fowles RE, Sorensen SG, 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. 13:354–362.

26. Sesana M, Vaghetti M, Albiero R, Corvaja N, Martini G, Sivieri G, et al. Effectiveness and complications of vascular access closure devices after interventional procedures. J Invasive Cardiol. 2000. 12:395–399.

27. Carey D, Martin JR, Moore CA, Valentine MC, Nygaard TW. Complications of femoral artery closure devices. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2001. 52:3–7. discussion 8.