Abstract 14277: Comparison of Three Vascular Closure Devices for Vascular Access Closure After Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures

Abstract

Introduction: Vascular closure devices are commonly used for EP procedures to achieve rapid hemostasis. Different devices using different mechanisms of action are available, but the potential contribution of each type to the incidence of vascular complications is not clear. Methods: This is a single center, prospective study in which 138 contemporaneous patients undergoing EP procedures were categorized according to the vascular closure device type used: Vascade (collagen plug, n=57), Perclose (suture, n=41), and SiteSeal (external compression, n=40). The primary endpoint was access-related major vascular complications. Secondary endpoints included time to ambulation and delayed access-site bleeding requiring additional manual pressure. Results Mean age and BMI 68±11 years and 29.7±6.2 Kg/m 2 , 46 (33%) were female, 121 (88%) were on uninterrupted antithrombotic therapy (71% OAC, 14% OAC/APLT, 3% APLT). Femoral vein access was obtained in all, bilaterally in 113 (82%), with a mean of 3±1 access sites per patient and a sheath size ranging from 6- to 23-Fr. Femoral arterial access was obtained in 14 (10%), once per patient, with a sheath size ranging from 5- to 8-Fr. There were no arterial access complications. On the venous side, hematomas occurred in 3/57 (5%) of the Vascade group, 1/41 (2%) of the Perclose group, and 0/40 (0%) of the SiteSeal group (p=ns for all comparisons). Delayed access-site bleeding occurred in 5/57 (9%) of the Vascade group, 5/41 (12%) of the Perclose group, and 7/40 (18%) of the SiteSeal group (p=ns for all comparisons). Time to ambulation was comparable between groups (minutes: 139±51 Vascade, 137±34 Perclose, 123±11 SiteSeal, p=ns). Conclusion Vascade, Perclose, and SiteSeal are comparable in term of vascular complications and time to ambulation for patients undergoing EP procedures.