Key result
Vascular closure devices eliminated the need for prolonged immobilization compared to manual compression (0% vs 1.4%; P=0.04) and significantly reduced access-site hematomas (P=0.004).
Why the study?
Manual compression for venous access requires prolonged immobilization and extended time-to-haemostasis, whereas vascular closure devices may offer shorter times to haemostasis and ambulation.
Does a vascular closure device reduce access-site and urinary complications compared to manual compression in patients undergoing catheter ablation or left atrial appendage occlusion under uninterrupted anticoagulation?
Cohort (n=803)
Yes
Does a vascular closure device reduce access-site and urinary complications compared to manual compression in patients undergoing catheter ablation or left atrial appendage occlusion under uninterrupted anticoagulation?
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 1.4%
p-value: p=0.04
Vascular closure devices for venous access-site closure provide effective haemostasis while reducing access-site complications, ambulation time, and urinary complications compared to manual compression.
VCD use was associated with faster hemostasis in venous access; leaves open whether it reduces urinary tract complications versus MC.
AIMS: Manual compression (MC), widely used to achieve venous access haemostasis, needs prolonged immobilization and extended time-to-haemostasis. Vascular closure devices (VCD) have been reported to have significantly shorter time to haemostasis and ambulation in arterial access-site management. The current study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy as well as rate of urinary tract complications in patients receiving MC vs. VCD for venous access-site closure. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 803 consecutive patients undergoing catheter ablation or left atrial appendage closure were classified into the VCD (n = 304) and the MC (n = 499) group, based on the methods used for haemostasis at the venous access site. Foley catheter was used for bladder-emptying in all MC cases and 15 VCD patients. At one site, VCD group patients with experience of MC in prior ablations were asked to describe their overall satisfaction level after comparing the past experience with the present. Haemostasis was achieved effectively in both populations. No VCD cases required >2 h bed rest, whereas 7 (1.4%) patients in the MC group needed prolonged immobilization (P = 0.04). Significantly higher incidence of access-site haematoma (P = 0.004) and urinary complications (P < 0.05) were observed in the MC group. Majority of VCD patients (68%) with prior experience of MC for haemostasis expressed satisfaction over the early ambulation and ability to void urine without bladder catheterization. CONCLUSION: Vascular closure devices provided effective haemostasis, while reducing the access-site complications, ambulation time, and urinary complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohanty et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Catheter ablation or left atrial appendage occlusion under uninterrupted anticoagulation (n=803). Vascular closure device (VCD) vs. Manual compression (MC) was evaluated on Prolonged immobilization (>2 h bed rest) (p=0.04). Vascular closure devices eliminated the need for prolonged immobilization compared to manual compression (0% vs 1.4%; P=0.04) and significantly reduced access-site hematomas (P=0.004).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: