Arteriotomy Closure Devices in EVAR, TEVAR, and TAVR: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies

Abstract

Objectives Cardiac and vascular surgery benefit from percutaneous interventions. Arteriotomy closure devices (ACDs) enable minimally invasive access to the common femoral artery (CFA). The objective of this review was to assess the differences between ACDs and surgical cut down (SCD) of the CFA regarding the number of complications, duration of surgery (DOS), and hospital length of stay (HLOS). Design A systematic literature search with predefined search terms was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (2000–2016). All studies reporting on ACD and SCD for a puncture of the CFA of at least 12 French (Fr.) were assessed for eligibility. Methods Included were randomised controlled trials and cohort studies comparing both techniques. Patient characteristics, exclusion criteria, and conversion rates were evaluated. Complications, DOS, and HLOS were compared. Materials A total of 17 studies were included for meta-analysis, describing 7889 vascular access sites; four studies were randomised trials, two studies reported from a prospective database, and 11 studies reported retrospective cohorts. Results ACD was associated with fewer post-operative seromas (odds ratio [OR] 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06–0.35), less wound dehiscence (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03–0.78), and fewer surgical site infections (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23–0.63). Post-operative pseudoaneurysms were significantly more common in the ACD group (OR 3.83, 95% CI 1.55–9.44). In five of 17 studies, DOS and HLOS were not reduced in the ACD group. When all studies reporting a mean DOS and/or HLOS were compared in a non-parametric analysis, neither was significantly different. Conclusion This meta-analysis favours ACD regarding the number of wound complications compared with SCD in endovascular aneurysm repair, thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair, and transcatheter aortic valve repair. Treatment duration (DOS and HLOS) was not reduced in ACD. The differences are of limited clinical significance and with this equivocal quality of evidence, the ACD may be considered safe for CFA access in suitable patients.