Comparison of Closure Device with Manual Compression in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Through Femoral Access Site
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v74i2.7951Keywords:
Closure device, Femoral artery, Hemostasis, Manual compression, Percutaneous coronary interventionAbstract
Objective: To compare the complications between closure device and manual compression in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention through femoral access site.
Study Design: Comparative cross-sectional study.
Place and Duration of Study: Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology, from Mar to Nov 2021.
Methodology: Eighty patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention through the femoral access site during the study period were recruited in this analysis. Patients were randomly divided into two groups for the procedure adopted for hemostasis after percutaneous coronary intervention. Group-A underwent manual compression of the femoral access site, while hemostasis in Group-B was achieved with the help of a closure device. Hematoma formation, pseudo-aneurysm, AV fistula and bleeding were compared in both groups.
Results: Eighty patients participated in this analysis. Of them, 50(62.5%) were male and 30(37.5%) were female. The mean age of patients was 48.85±8.93 years. In 35(43.75%) patients, hemostasis was achieved by manual compression (Group-A), while in 45(56.25%) patients, by vascular compression device (Group-B). Both groups did not differ statistically significantly in Hematoma formation, AV fistula formation, bleeding, and pseudo-aneurysm formation (p-value: 0.05).
Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference in the complications studied among the closure device method and manual compression of hemostasis in PCI through femoral vein access.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Bibi S, Khan A, Nadeem A, Mushtaq S, Khan GM. Assessment of
utility values and QALYs after primary PCI with DP-Xience and
BP-Biomatrix stents. PLoS One 2021; 16(6): e0253290.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253290.
Papakonstantinou NA, Baikoussis NG, Dedeilias P, Argiriou M,
Charitos C. Cardiac surgery or interventional cardiology? Why
not both? Let's go hybrid. J Cardiol 2017; 69(1): 46-56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjcc.2016.09.007.
Tsang MB, Schwalm JD, Gandhi S, Sibbald MG, Gafni A, Mercuri
M, et al. Comparison of Heart Team vs Interventional
Cardiologist Recommendations for the Treatment of Patients
With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease. JAMA Netw Open
; 3(8): e2012749.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.12749.
Ahmad M, Mehta P, Reddivari AKR, Mungee S. Percutaneous
Coronary Intervention. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls
Publishing; 2021.
Spitzer E, McFadden E, Vranckx P, de Vries T, Ren B, Collet C, et
al. Defining Staged Procedures for Percutaneous Coronary
Intervention Trials: A Guidance Document. JACC Cardiovasc
Interv 2018; 11(9): 823-832.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2018.03.044.
Ferreira RM, de Souza-Silva NA, Salis LHA. Complications after
elective percutaneous coronary interventions: A comparison
between public and private hospitals. Indian Heart J 2018; 70(1):
-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ihj.2017.06.012.
Thibert MJ, Fordyce CB, Cairns JA, Turgeon RD, Mackay M, Lee
T, et al. Access-Site vs Non-Access-Site Major Bleeding and InHospital Outcomes Among STEMI Patients Receiving Primary
PCI. CJC Open 2021; 3(7): 864-871.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjco.2021.02.009.
Noori VJ, Eldrup-Jørgensen J. A systematic review of vascular
closure devices for femoral artery puncture sites. J Vasc Surg
; 68(3): 887-899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2018.05.019.
Gewalt SM, Helde SM, Ibrahim T, Mayer K, Schmidt R, BottFlügel L, et al. Comparison of Vascular Closure Devices Versus
Manual Compression After Femoral Artery Puncture in Women.
Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11(8): e006074.
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.006074
Baqi A, Saadia S. Periprocedural and In-Hospital Outcomes
among Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Saphenous Vein
Graft: A Retrospective Observational Study at a Tertiary Care
Hospital in South Asian Country. Cureus 2021; 13(4): e14251.
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.14251.
Batra MK, Rai L, Khan NU, Mengal MN, Khowaja S, Rizvi SNH,
et al. Radial or femoral access in primary percutaneous coronary
intervention (PCI): Does the choice matters? Indian Heart J 2020;
(3): 166-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ihj.2020.05.004.
McCartney PJ, Berry C. Redefining successful primary PCI. Eur
Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2019; 20(2): 133-135.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jey159.
Montalescot G, Andersen HR, Antoniucci D. Recommendations
on percutaneous coronary intervention for the reperfusion of
acute ST elevation myocardial infarction. Heart 2004; 90(6): e37.
Beraldo-de Andrade P, de Ribamar Costa J Jr, Rinaldi FS, de
Castro Bienert IR, Barbosa RA, Esteves V, et al. Vascular Closure
Devices Attenuate Femoral Access Complications of Primary
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. J Invasive Cardiol 2020;
(10): 364-370.
Hermanides RS, Ottervanger JP, Dambrink JH, de Boer MJ,
Hoorntje JC, Gosselink AT, et al. Closure device or manual
compression in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary
intervention: a randomized comparison. J Invasive Cardiol 2010;
(12): 562-566.
Mayer K, Gewalt S, Morath T, Emmer C, Hilz R, Linhardt M, et al.
Comparison of Vascular Closure Devices vs Manual Compression
After Femoral Artery Puncture in Patients on Oral
Anticoagulation - Post Hoc Analysis of the ISAR-CLOSURE Trial.
J Invasive Cardiol 2021; 33(9): E709-E715.
Mankerious N, Mayer K, Gewalt SM, Helde SM, Ibrahim T, BottFlügel L, et al. Comparison of the FemoSeal Vascular Closure
Device With Manual Compression After Femoral Artery
Puncture-Post-hoc Analysis of a Large-Scale, Randomized
Clinical Trial. J Invasive Cardiol 2018; 30(7): 235-239.
Gabrielli R, Rosati MS, Millarelli M, Dante A, Maiorano M,
Musilli A, et al. FemoSeal® Device Use for Femoral Artery
Closure by Different Techniques. Ann Vasc Surg 2018; 51: 18-24.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
