Combined strategy for large-bore arteriotomy closure after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Abstract

Abstract Background The access site vascular complications remain a relevant complication following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). They are frequently associated with vascular closure device failure (VCD). Incidence of vascular complications depends on different factors such as patient's characteristics and clinical risk profile, femoral morphology, access sheath size or technical procedural experience. Their rate is reported between 4–19% [1]. Vascular complications negatively affect morbidity and mortality following TAVI [2]. VCDs that are most commonly used include the suture-based ProGlide and the plug-based MANTA. ProGlide was originally developed for small-bore vessel closure between 6–8F, but a combination of 2 or more devices is suitable for large-bore vessel closure >12F. The MANTA device is originally dedicated for large-bore vessel closure. The MANTA device was not superior to the use of 2 ProGlides in their direct comparison in terms of access site–related vascular complications or access site bleedings. Plug-based VCDs required fewer, but a different kind of bailout maneuvers [3,4]. The alternative and less frequently used strategy is intentional combination of one suture-based VCD – ProGlide with small-bore plug-based VCD AngioSeal. The data supporting this approach are very limited, but showing this concept as a safe, with lower risk of vascular or bleeding complications. Moreover, this strategy requires less additional endovascular interventions when compared with vascular closure using two suture-based VCDs [5]. Methods Retrospectively analysed single centre comparison of two different large-bore vessel closure strategies: two suture-based ProGlides (SB group) vs. intentional combination of one ProGlide with plug-based AngioSeal 8F (CB group). The primary endpoint was occurrence of access site–related vascular complications at 30-days. Results 71 consecutive patients treated between Aug/2020 and May/2021 (SB group) were compared with 68 consecutive patients treated between May/2021 and Jan/2022 (CB group). There wasn`t any significant difference in patient's characteristics between both groups: mean age 80 vs. 81 years, females 53,8% vs. 54,9%, STS score 3,46% vs. 3,47%. The only difference was higher proportion of the patients treated oral anticoagulation in SB group (46,4% vs. 38,5%). The lower rate of vascular complication was observed in CB group 2,9% vs. 7,1%. Moreover, we had to use additional VCD in 14 cases among patients from SB group to achieve haemostasis. Conclusion The intentional combination of one suture-based VCD with one plug-based VCD is effective and safe. This combined strategy was associated with lower rate of vascular complication compare the use of 2 suture-based VCDs in our patient's cohort following TAVI. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.