Perclose Proglide™ for Vascular Closure

References

• Piper WD , MalenkaDJ, RyanTJJret al. Predicting vascular complications in percutaneous coronary interventions. Am. Heart J., 145, 1022–1029 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson PR , KracjerZ, KansalNet al. A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of totally percutaneous access versus open femoral exposure for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (the PEVAR Trial). J. Vasc. Surg., 59, 1181–1193 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbash IM , BarbantiM, WebbJet al. Comparison of vascular closure devices for access site closure after transfemoral aortic valve implantation. Eur. Heart J., 36, 3370–3379 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pacchioni A , FerroJ, PesariniGet al. The activated clotting time paradox: relationship between activated clotting time and occlusion of the radial artery when used as vascular access for percutaneous coronary procedures. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv., 12(9), e008045 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pacchioni A , MugnoloA, PenzoCet al. Cerebral microembolism during transradial coronary angiography: comparison between single and double catheter strategy. Int. J. Cardiol., 170(3), 438–439 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pacchioni A , VersaciF, MugnoloAet al. Risk of brain injury during diagnostic coronary angiography: comparison between right and left radial approach. Int. J. Cardiol., 167(6), 3021–3026 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherev DA , ShawRE, BrentBN. Angiographic predictors of femoral access site complications: implication for planned percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv., 65, 196–202 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavris DR , GallauresiBA, LinBet al. Risk of local adverse events following cardiac catheterization by hemostasis device use and gender. J. Invasive Cardiol., 16, 459–464 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Waksman R , KingSB3rd, DouglasJSet al. Predictors of groin complications after balloon and new-device coronary intervention. Am. J. Cardiol., 75, 886–889 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rupp SB , VogelzangRL, NemcekAAJr, YungbluthMM. Relationship of the inguinal ligament to pelvic radiographic landmarks: anatomic correlation and its role in femoral arteriography. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol., 4, 409–413 (1993).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pitta SR , PrasadA, KumarGet al. Location of femoral artery access and correlation with vascular complications. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv., 78, 294–299 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bangalore S , BhattDL. Femoral arterial access and closure. Circulation, 124, e147–e156 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherev D , ShawRE, BrentBet al. Angiographic predictors of femoral access site complications: implication for planned percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv., 65, 196–202 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altin RS , FlickerS, NaidechHJ. Pseudoaneurysm and arteriovenous fistula after femoral artery catheterization: association with low femoral punctures. Am. J. Roentgenol., 152, 629–663 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee CH , KoYG, ParkYet al. Risk factors for closure failure following percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Ann. Vasc. Surg., 66, 406–414 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nara Y , WatanabeY, KozumaK. Incidence, predictors and mid-term outcomes of percutaneous closure failure after transfemoral aortic valve implantation using an expandable sheath (from the Optimized Transcatheter Valvular Intervention [OCEAN-TAVI] Registry. Am. J. Cardiol., 119(4), 611–617 (2017).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dungas GD , DiMario C, KipshidzeNN. Interventional Cardiology Principles and Practice2nd Edition. Wiley Blackwell, ISBN. 978-1-118-97603-6, Section 1, Chapter 217–19 (2017).
   Google Scholar
• Murarka S , MovahedMR. The use of micropuncture technique for vascular or body cavity access. Rev. Cardiovasc. Med., 15(3), 245–251 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Palma R , SettergrenM, RuckAet al. Impact of percutaneous femoral arteriotomy closure using the MANTATM device on vascular and bleeding complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv., 92, 954–961 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Wiechen MP , LigthartJM, Van MieghemNM. Large-bore vascular closure: new devices and techniques. Interv. Cardiol., 14(1), 17–21 (2019).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Montero-Cabezas JM , vander Meer RW, vander Kley F. Percutaneous decannulation of femoral venoarterial ecmo cannulas using MANTA vascular closure device. Can. J. Cardiol., 35(6), 796.e9–796.e11 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermiller JB , SimontonC, HinoharaTet al. The StarClose vascular closure system: interventional results from the CLIP study. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv., 68, 677–683 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haulon S , KhodjaH, ProudfootCWet al. A systematic literature review of the efficacy and safety of the Prostar XL device for the closure of large femoral arterial access sites in patients undergoing percutaneous endovascular aortic procedures. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg., 43, 201–213 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Rijkee MP , Statiusvan Eps RG, WeverJJet al. Predictors of failure of closure in percutaneous EVAR using the Prostar xl percutaneous vascular surgery device. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg., 49, 45–49 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deuling JH , VermeulenRP, AnthonioRAet al. Closure of the femoral artery after cardiac catheterization: a comparison of Angio-Seal, StarClose and manual compression. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv., 71, 518–523 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hvelplund A , JegerR, OsterwalderRet al. The Angio-Seal femoral closure device allows immediate ambulation after coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. EuroIntervention, 7, 234–241 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kara K , MahabadiAA, BergMHet al. Utilization of collagen-based vascular closure devices in patients with severe peripheral artery disease. J. Invasive Cardiol., 25, 19–22 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong SC , BachinskyW, CambierPet al. A randomized comparison of a novel bioabsorbable vascular closure device versus manual compression in the achievement of hemostasis after percutaneous femoral procedures: the ECLIPSE (Ensure’s Vascular Closure Device Speeds Hemostasis Trial). JACC Cardiovasc. Interv., 2, 785–793 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schelp C , Freitag-WolfS, HinzmannD. Large-scale experience with an anchorless vascular closure device in a real-life setting. Clin. Res. Cardiol., 104, 145–153 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheinert D , SievertH, TurcoMAet al. The safety and efficacy of an extravascular water-soluble sealant for vascular closure: initial clinical results for Mynx. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv., 70, 627–633 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Scott MC , SpencerHJ, AliATet al. Mynx vascular closure device in arterial endovascular procedures. Ann. Vasc. Surg., 46, 112–117 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pruski MJ Jr , BlachutAM, KonkolewskaMet al. MynxGrip for closure of antegrade puncture after peripheral interventions with same-day discharge. Vasc. Endovascular Surg., 51, 67–71 (2017).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermiller JB , LeimbachW, GammonRet al. A prospective, randomized, pivotal trial of a novel extravascular collagen-based closure device compared to manual compression in diagnostic and interventional patients. J. Invasive Cardiol., 27, 129–136 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohanty S , TrivediC, BeheirySet al. Venous access-site closure with vascular closure device vs. manual compression in patients undergoing catheter ablation or left atrial appendage occlusion under uninterrupted anticoagulation: a multicentre experience on efficacy and complications. Europace, 21(7), 1048–1054 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noori VJ , Eldrup-JørgensenJ. A systematic review of vascular closure devices for femoral artery puncture sites. J. Vasc. Surg., 68(3), 887–899 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Genereux P , KodaliS, LeonMBet al. Clinical outcomes using a new crossover balloon occlusion technique for percutaneous closure after transfemoral aortic valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv., 4, 861–867 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sekhar A , SuttonBS, RahejaPet al. Femoral arterial closure using ProGlide® is more efficacious and cost-effective when ambulating early following cardiac catheterization. Int. J. Cardiol. Heart Vasc., 13, 6–13 (2016).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nelson PR , KracjerZ, KansalNet al. A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of totally percutaneous access versus open femoral exposure for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (the PEVAR trial). J. Vasc. Surg., 59(5), 1181–1193 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zakko J , ScaliST, BeckAWet al. Percutaneous thoracic endovascular aortic repair is not contraindicated in obese patients. J. Vasc. Surg., 60(4), 921–928 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbanti M , BinderRK, FreemanMet al. Impact of low-profile sheaths on vascular complications during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement. EuroIntervention, 9, 929–935 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther T , HammCW, SchulerGet al. GARY Executive Board . Perioperative results and complications in 15,964 transcatheter aortic valve replacements: prospective data from the GARY registry. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 65, 2173–2180 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayashida K , LefèvreT, ChevalierBet al. True percutaneous approach for transfemoral aortic valve implantation using the Prostar XL device: impact of learning curve on vascular complications. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv., 5, 207–214 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toggweiler S , WebbJG. Challenges in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Swiss Med. Wkly, 142, w13735 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buck DB , KarthausEG, SodenPAet al. Percutaneous versus femoral cutdown access for endovascular aneurysm repair. J. Vasc. Surg., 62, 16–21 (2015).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barbanti M , CapranzanoP, OhnoYet al. Comparison of suture-based vascular closure devices in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. EuroIntervention, 11, 690–697 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seeger J , GonskaB, RodewaldCet al. Impact of suture mediated femoral access site closure with the Prostar XL compared to the ProGlide system on outcome in transfemoral aortic valve implantation. Int. J. Cardiol., 223, 564–567 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Power D , SchäferU, GuedeneyPet al. Impact of percutaneous closure device type on vascular and bleeding complications after TAVR: a post hoc analysis from the BRAVO-3 randomized trial Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv., 93(7), 1374–1381 (2019).
   Google Scholar
• Maniotis C and reouC, KaralisIet al. A systematic review on the safety of Prostar XL versus ProGlide after TAVR and EVAR. Cardiovasc. Revasc. Med., 18(2), 145–150 (2017).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schneider DB , KrajcerZ, BonafedeMet al. Clinical and economic outcomes of ProGlide compared with surgical repair of large bore arterial access. J. Comp. Eff. Res., 8(16), 1381–1392 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bazarbashi N , AhujaK, GadMMet al. The utilization of single versus double Perclose devices for transfemoral aortic valve replacement access site closure: insights from Cleveland Clinic Aortic Valve Center. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv., 96(2), 442–447 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Lee CH , KoYG, ParkY. Risk factors for closure failure following percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Ann. Vasc. Surg., 66, 406–414 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehilli J , JochheimD, Abdel-WahabMet al. One-year outcomes with two suture-mediated closure devices to achieve access-site haemostasis following transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. EuroIntervention, 12, 1298–1304 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honda Y , ArakiM, YamawakiMet al. The novel echo-guided ProGlide technique during percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J. Interv. Cardiol., 31(2), 216–222 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lata K , KakiA, GrinesCet al. Pre-close technique of percutaneous closure for delayed hemostasis of large-bore femoral sheaths. J. Interv. Cardiol., 31(4), 504–510 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang JW , YangJH, SungKet al. Percutaneous removal using Perclose ProGlide closure devices versus surgical removal for weaning after percutaneous cannulation for venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J. Vasc. Surg., 63(4), 998–1003 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lüsebrink E , StremmelC, StarkK. Percutaneous decannulation instead of surgical removal for weaning after venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation—a crossed perclose proglide closure device technique using a hemostasis valve Y connector. Crit. Care Explor., 1(6), e0018 (2019).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kar S , HermillerJ, ConnKet al. The use of the Perclose Proglide suture mediated closure (SMC) device for vein artery access site closure up to 24F sheaths. JACCCardiovasc. Interv., 11(4), S35 (2018).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar