Does a single ProGlide device strategy provide similar efficacy and safety compared to a two ProGlide device strategy for femoral artery closure in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI?
A single ProGlide strategy for femoral closure during TAVI is as safe as the traditional two-device approach, with significantly lower rates of device failure, offering potential advantages in simplicity and cost.
Background: Vascular closure of the femoral artery during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains a critical step prone to complications, despite advancements in introducer technology. The traditional technique involves using two ProGlide® suture closure devices (2P), but alternative approaches, such as employing a single ProGlide® device (1P), have emerged. Aims: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the 1P strategy compared to the standard 2P closure technique during transfemoral TAVI procedures. Methods: A registry-based study was conducted at the University Hospitals of Strasbourg, France, from January 2020 to December 2023. Consecutive patients who underwent TAVI via the transfemoral approach were deemed eligible. Results: The study cohort consisted of 1303 patients, with a mean age of 81.7 years and 47% female. The 1P strategy was used in 733 cases (56.3%), while the 2P technique was employed in 570 patients (43.7%). Hemostasis was achieved in the catheterization laboratory without additional devices in 30.4% of the single-ProGlide® pre-closing cases. Vascular complication rates were similar in both groups, at 11.3% for the 1P technique and 11.4% for the 2P technique (p = 0.964). However, vascular closure device failure was significantly less frequent in the 1P group (1.6%) compared to the 2P group (5.3%). Conclusions: The 1P strategy for pre-closing during TAVI is as effective and safe as the conventional 2P approach. The 1P method offers potential advantages in terms of simplicity and cost-effectiveness.
Roulot et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: