Current Status of Suture-mediated Closure: What Is the Cost of Comfort?

Brown, Daniel B.

doi:10.1097/01.rvi.0000079977.80153.80

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The vascular complication rate from coronary catheterization procedures is in the range of 1.5–9.0% [3]. Commonly described vascular complications from both arterial closure devices and manual compression include hematoma, bleeding, arteriovenous fistula, pseudoaneurysm, and infection [1–6]. The incidence of complications requiring surgical access repair from Perclose closure ranges from 0.3% to 2.5% [5].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Commonly described vascular complications from both arterial closure devices and manual compression include hematoma, bleeding, arteriovenous fistula, pseudoaneurysm, and infection [1–6]. The incidence of complications requiring surgical access repair from Perclose closure ranges from 0.3% to 2.5% [5]. Based on recent reviews and meta‐analyses, there appears to be no significant difference in vascular complications from arterial closure devices compared to manual compression after cardiac catheterization [1, 2].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Claudication secondary to Perclose use after percutaneous procedures

Jang

Kim

Gray

et al. 2006

Cathet Cardio Intervent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of suture-mediated arterial closure devices has dramatically increased with the increased number of percutaneous procedures being performed. Complications from suture-mediated closure devices have been underreported. Specifically, arterial stenosis resulting in claudication has not been previously described in detail. We present nine patients who presented with various leg symptoms after Perclose was used to achieve arterial hemostasis following percutaneous procedures. All cases were found to have significant arterial stenoses from the Perclose sutures. Once diagnosis was correctly made, the patients either underwent surgical repair or percutaneous balloon angioplasty and in all cases the symptoms abated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Claudication secondary to Perclose use after percutaneous procedures

Jang

Kim

Gray

et al. 2006

Cathet Cardio Intervent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…22 However, other studies have expressed concern about increased risk of complications with these devices. 14–20 There is also apprehension about excess vascular inflammation and scarring associated with VCDs, because most active devices leave material behind when the procedure is complete, either in intravascular or extravascular component at arteriotomy site.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While VCDs have the potential to increase patient satisfaction by improving time to hemostasis, ambulation and discharge, 8–13 they have not been shown to reduce the risk of major groin complications. 14–20 Another concern with the use of VCDs is that most commercially available devices leave some foreign material behind when the procedure is complete, either in the intravascular or extravascular compartment at the arteriotomy site. These concerns have hindered the even wider adoption of VCDs for achieving hemostasis after invasive cardiac procedures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety and efficacy study of the wound care 360° SiteSeal® vascular closure device in percutaneous cardiac catheterization procedures

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Vascular access site complications after percutaneous transfemoral cardiovascular procedures remain a common cause of morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the SiteSeal® VCD for achieving hemostasis following diagnostic cardiac catheterization. Methods We conducted a prospective case control single center study to assess the safety and efficacy of SiteSeal® VCD compared to standard manual compression following diagnostic cardiac catheterization. Forty patients were enrolled in study to receive either SiteSeal® device or manual compression (20 in each group). Results Patients in the SiteSeal® group achieved hemostasis in a significantly shorter time (4 ± 2.4 vs. 19 ± 2.4 min, P < 0.001), had shorter time from hemostasis to ambulation (95 ± 44 vs. 388 ± 63 min, P < 0.001) and significantly earlier device deployment to discharge time compared to the manual compression group (4.7 ± 1.1 vs. 8.9 ± 4.8 h, P = 0.001). There was one non-major bleeding event in the SiteSeal® group which occurred >24 h after discharge from the hospital and was managed conservatively. In the remaining device patients, there was no clinical or Doppler ultrasound evidence of major or minor vascular complication with good overall patient comfort at discharge, 7 days and 30 days follow-up. Conclusions In this first clinical experience, the SiteSeal® VCD achieved safe and efficient hemostasis, allowed for earlier ambulation and faster discharge compared to manual compression.

show abstract

Vascular Access and Closure

Bangalore

2016

Cardiovascular Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current Status of Suture-mediated Closure: What Is the Cost of Comfort?

Cited by 7 publications

References 35 publications

Claudication secondary to Perclose use after percutaneous procedures

Claudication secondary to Perclose use after percutaneous procedures

Safety and efficacy study of the wound care 360° SiteSeal® vascular closure device in percutaneous cardiac catheterization procedures

Vascular Access and Closure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About