Comparison of Complication and Success Rates of ProGlide Closure Device in Patients Undergoing TAVI and Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

Gündüz Durmuş,Mehmet Mustafa Can,Akif Bayyiğit,Erdal Belen

doi:10.1155/2018/2687862

Abstract

Introduction Usage of the Perclose ProGlide® (PP: Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL, USA) closure device is becoming increasingly prevalent during percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The respective conditions treated via these procedures, abdominal aortic aneurysm and aortic valve stenosis, share risk factors but are two different physiopathological problems. Aim Our aim was to compare the complication and success rates of PP closure device use in patients undergoing EVAR and TAVI. Materials and Methods A total of 74 patients, including 58 undergoing TAVI and 16 undergoing EVAR, were analysed in our study. Results Of the TAVI patients treated using the PP closure device, two (3.4%) had access to site-related bleeding complications and two (3.4%) experienced device failure. Of the EVAR patients who received the PP closure device, three (18.8%) had bleeding complications and three (18.8%) experienced device failure. Conclusion Due to the underlying diffuse aortic wall pathology, the success rate of PP closure device use was lower and the complication rate of PP closure device was higher in the EVAR group versus the TAVI group.

Highlights

Usage of the Perclose ProGlide5 (PP: Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL, USA) closure device is becoming increasingly prevalent during percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)
The current study was approved by the institutional ethics committee and the investigation conformed to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki
We found that PP closure device-related complications and device failure were more common in EVAR patients than in TAVI patients

Summary

Introduction

Usage of the Perclose ProGlide (PP: Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL, USA) closure device is becoming increasingly prevalent during percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Aim. Our aim was to compare the complication and success rates of PP closure device use in patients undergoing EVAR and TAVI. Of the TAVI patients treated using the PP closure device, two (3.4%) had access to site-related bleeding complications and two (3.4%) experienced device failure. Of the EVAR patients who received the PP closure device, three (18.8%) had bleeding complications and three (18.8%) experienced device failure. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has spread rapidly as a strategy to manage high-risk patients requiring aortic valve replacement due to aortic valve stenosis. For this purpose, the common femoral artery is the most frequently used peripheral artery, and postprocedure hemostasis is often achieved by manual compression. Hemostasis is achieved faster, and patients are mobilized and discharged earlier following the use of closure devices as compared with compression [5,6,7]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion