Key result
Perclose-assisted percutaneous cannulation cuts 30-day access-site complications ~94% vs. surgical femoral cutdown.
Why the study?
Percutaneous femoral cannulation with Perclose may reduce groin morbidity and enhance recovery compared with open cutdown in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery.
Does Perclose-assisted percutaneous cannulation reduce access-site complications compared to traditional femoral cutdown in adult patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral surgery?
RCT (n=60)
No
Does Perclose-assisted percutaneous cannulation reduce access-site complications compared to traditional femoral cutdown in adult patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral surgery?
Absolute Event Rate: 3.3% vs 53.3%
p-value: p=<0.001
Perclose-assisted percutaneous cannulation significantly reduces access-site complications and improves recovery metrics compared to traditional femoral cutdown in minimally invasive mitral surgery.
Background: Percutaneous femoral cannulation with Perclose may mitigate groin morbidity and enhance recovery compared with open cutdown in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery.Methods: In this single-center randomized trial, 60 adult patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral surgery were randomized to Perclose-assisted percutaneous cannulation (n=30) or traditional femoral cutdown (n=30). The primary endpoint was a 30-day composite of access-site complications. Secondary endpoints included cannulation time, hemostasis time, pain, time to ambulation, transfusion, length of stay (LOS), and readmission.Results: Baseline demographics were similar. Composite complications were 3.3% with Perclose vs 53.3% with cutdown (p<0.001). Perclose significantly shortened cannulation (8±2 vs 16±4 min), hemostasis (6±3 vs 24±8 min), ambulation (10±4 vs 28±10 h), and LOS (5.5±1.4 vs 7.8±2.2 days), reduced pain (1.5±0.9 vs 4.8±1.6), and decreased transfusion needs (0.2±0.5 vs 1.2±1.3 units), all p<0.001. Individual complications such as infection, hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, and lymphocele were significantly less frequent with Perclose.Conclusions: Perclose-assisted percutaneous cannulation markedly reduced complications and improved recovery compared with cutdown, supporting its adoption as a default access strategy in suitable patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salama et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Minimally invasive mitral surgery (n=60). Perclose-assisted percutaneous cannulation vs. Traditional femoral cutdown was evaluated on 30-day composite of access-site complications (p=<0.001). Perclose-assisted percutaneous cannulation significantly reduced the 30-day composite of access-site complications compared with traditional femoral cutdown (3.3% vs 53.3%, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: