Why the study?
As TAVR expands to lower-risk patients, procedure-related vascular and bleeding complications must be minimized by evaluating the impact of different large-bore access closure devices.
Does the choice of large-bore arterial access closure device (MANTA, ProGlide, ProStar XL) improve clinical outcomes and reduce complications in patients undergoing TAVR?
Does the choice of large-bore arterial access closure device (MANTA, ProGlide, ProStar XL) improve clinical outcomes and reduce complications in patients undergoing TAVR?
ProGlide and MANTA are both valid vascular closure devices for TAVR, with ProGlide best for minimizing bleeding and MANTA best for reducing vascular complications, while ProStar XL performed poorly.
Aims As the indications to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) expand to patients at increasingly lower risk, procedure-related vascular and bleeding complications events must be minimized. We aimed to evaluate the impact of different large-bore arterial access closure devices on clinical outcomes after TAVR. Methods and results We searched for papers that reported outcomes according to the type of vascular closure device/technique used after TAVR and performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Fifteen studies involving 9259 patients who underwent access site closure using PROSTAR™ XL percutaneous vascular surgical system (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA), Perclose ProGlide™ suture-mediated closure system (Abbott), or MANTATM vascular closure device (Teleflex, Morrisville, NC, USA) were included. NMA showed MANTA to have the highest likelihood of reducing a primary composite endpoint of intra-hospital death, major vascular complications, and major or life-threatening bleedings [surface under the cumulative ranking curve analysis (SUCRA) 94.8%], but this was mitigated when only randomized clinical trials and propensity-matched cohorts were included (SUCRA 56.1%). The ProGlide showed the highest likelihood to reduce major or life-threatening bleedings, especially with increasing procedural complexity, and the MANTA device to reduce major and minor vascular complications. The ProStar XL device performed poorly in all explored endpoints. Conclusion Available evidence summarized through a NMA shows that ProGlide and MANTA devices appear to be both valid vascular closure devices globally and to be the best options to minimize vascular complications and reduce bleeding in patients undergoing TAVR, respectively.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Montalto et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: