Abstract

Access site complications remain common following atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation. Femoral vascular closure devices (VCDs) reduce time to hemostasis compared with manual compression, although large-scale data comparing clinical outcomes between the two approaches are lacking. Two cohorts of patients undergoing AF ablation were identified from 36 healthcare organizations using a global federated research network (TriNetX): those receiving a VCD for femoral hemostasis, and those not receiving a VCD. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) model based on baseline characteristics was used to create two comparable cohorts. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, vascular complications, bleeding events, and need for blood transfusion. Outcomes were assessed during early (within 7 days of ablation) and extended follow-up (within 8-30 days of ablation). After PSM, 28 872 patients were included (14 436 in each cohort). The primary composite outcome occurred less frequently in the VCD cohort during early (1.97% vs. 2.60%, odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.88; p < .001) and extended follow-up (1.15% vs. 1.43%, OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98; p = .032). This was driven by a lower rate of vascular complications during early follow-up in the VCD cohort (0.83% vs. 1.26%, OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52-0.83; p < .001), and fewer bleeding events during early (0.90% vs. 1.23%, OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.92; p = .007) and extended follow-up (0.36% vs. 0.59%, OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.86; p = .005). Following AF ablation, femoral venous hemostasis with a VCD was associated with reduced complications compared with hemostasis without a VCD.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call