Key result
Complete vascular closure device use is linked to ~31% fewer vascular complications during ventricular arrhythmia ablation.
Why the study?
Does the complete use of vascular closure devices reduce vascular complications in patients undergoing catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias compared to manual compression?
Cohort (n=872)
Does the complete use of vascular closure devices reduce vascular complications in patients undergoing catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias compared to manual compression?
Odds Ratio: 0.69 (95% CI 0.48–0.96)
Absolute Event Rate: 3.3% vs 6.8%
p-value: p=0.036
The use of vascular closure devices for all access sites during catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias is associated with a significantly lower risk of vascular complications compared to manual compression.
Vascular access site complications are the most frequent complications of percutaneous catheter ablation (CA) of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). Whether arterial/venous vascular closure devices (VCDs) prevent vascular complications is unknown. We investigated the benefit of VCDs in patients undergoing CA of VAs. Consecutive CA of VAs were included (2018-2022). Vascular accesses were obtained with ultrasound guidance. At the discretion of the operator, arterial and/or venous VCDs were used. Cases were divided into 3 groups: no use of VCDs for any arterial/venous accesses (manual compression [MC]), use of VCDs for some but not all accesses (Partial-VCDs), and use of VCDs for all accesses (Complete-VCDs). Vascular complications were classified as minor if they did not require intervention or major if they required intervention. A total of 1016 procedures were performed in 872 patients (mean age 62 ± 13 years; mean body mass index 30 ± 6 kg/m2; 27% female) during the study period. Femoral arterial access was obtained in 887 procedures (875 single access: 7.4 ± 1.5 F size; 12 two accesses: 7.3 ± 3 and 6.9 ± 1.8 F). Femoral venous access was obtained in 1014 procedures (unilateral in 17%; bilateral in 83%; mean number of access sites per patient 2.6 ± 0.7; mean size 8.4 ± 1.3 F). Hemostasis was achieved with MC in 192 procedures (19%), with Partial-VCD in 275 (27%), and with Complete-VCD in 549 (54%). A vascular complication occurred in 52 procedures (5.1%), including a minor hematoma in 3.9% and/or a major complication in 1.7%. The rate of vascular complications was 6.8% (5.2% minor and 1.6% major) in the MC group, 7.6% (5.1% minor and 3.3% major) in the Partial-VCD group, and 3.3% (2.9% minor and 0.9% major) in the Complete-VCD group (P = .014 for comparison). In multivariable analysis, Complete-VCD remained independently associated with a lower risk of vascular complications (odds ratio 0.69; 95% confidence interval 0.48-0.96; P = .036). In patients undergoing CA of VAs, Complete-VCD is associated with lower rates of vascular-related complications compared with MC or Partial-VCD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tabaja et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Ventricular arrhythmias requiring catheter ablation (n=872). Complete use of vascular closure devices (Complete-VCD) vs. Manual compression (MC) or partial use of vascular closure devices (Partial-VCD) was evaluated on Vascular complications (minor or major) (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.48-0.96, p=0.036). Complete use of vascular closure devices during catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias was independently associated with a lower risk of vascular complications (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.96; P=0.036).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: