A propensity-matched comparison of plug- versus suture-based vascular closure after TAVI.

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Vascular access site complications are associated with increased morbidity and mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Current results comparing strategies with plug- (P-VCD; MANTA) and suture-based vascular closure devices (S-VCD; Perclose ProGlide) remain inconsistent. It was our aim to assess the incidence of access-related vascular complications after P-VCD or S-VCD strategies after transfemoral TAVI. The Plug or sUture based vascuLar cloSurE after TAVI (PULSE) registry retrospectively evaluated 10,120 consecutive patients who had undergone transfemoral TAVI at 10 centres from 2016 to 2021. A propensity score was used to match 900 P-VCD patients with 1,800 S-VCD patients in a 1:2 fashion. The primary outcome measures were major and minor access-related vascular complications at the primary access site, adjudicated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 definitions. The median age was 81.8 years, 46.4% of patients were female, and the median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II was 3.50%. In matched P-VCD and S-VCD groups, large-bore access-related complications occurred in 14.9% vs 10.3% (p<0.001; major: 3.6% vs 4.6%; p=0.218; minor: 11.3% vs 5.8%; p<0.001) of patients. Bleeding accounted for most of these complications (9.6% vs 7.2%; p=0.028) and was treated with endovascular balloon inflation (5.4% vs 2.6%; p<0.001), stent implantation (4.7% vs 0.7%; p<0.001) or surgical repair (0.7% vs 1.7%; p=0.03). P-VCD were associated with higher rates of primary access-related vascular complications, driven by minor complications, compared to S-VCD. Endovascular treatment was more common after P-VCD failure.