Key result
Vascular closure devices were associated with significantly higher rates of bleeding requiring emergency surgery compared to surgical exploration (34% for Prostar, 28% for ProGlide vs 0%, p=0.001).
Why the study?
Closure devices can serve as an alternative to surgical exploration of the femoral artery during transcatheter aortic valve implantation, but comparative vascular access complications require assessment in geriatric patients.
Do vascular closure devices compared to surgical exploration increase vascular access complications in geriatric patients undergoing TAVI?
Cohort (n=169)
No
Do vascular closure devices compared to surgical exploration increase vascular access complications in geriatric patients undergoing TAVI?
In geriatric patients undergoing TAVI, surgical exploration of the femoral artery significantly reduced bleeding and the need for emergency surgery compared to suture-based closure devices.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May warrant caution with closure devices in geriatric TAVI; hypothesis-generating observational data requiring randomized confirmation.
In transcatheter aortic valve implantation, some closure devices can be used as an alternative to the surgical exploration of the femoral artery for vascular access. This study aimed to compare closure devices and surgical exploration techniques in terms of vascular access complications, particularly in geriatric patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Latif ÜSTÜNEL (2021) conducted a cohort in Symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis (n=169). Vascular closure devices (Prostar and ProGlide) vs. Surgical exploration of the femoral artery was evaluated on Need for emergency surgery due to bleeding (p=0.001). Vascular closure devices were associated with significantly higher rates of bleeding requiring emergency surgery compared to surgical exploration (34% for Prostar, 28% for ProGlide vs 0%, p=0.001).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: