Key result
The VASCADE venous closure device achieved a comparable rate of re-bleeding to the Perclose device (13% vs. 11%, p=0.787) with no serious complications, while significantly reducing total post-procedure time.
Why the study?
Manual compression after atrial fibrillation ablation requires prolonged bed rest and causes patient discomfort, while Perclose devices can cause severe puncture site complications; the safety and efficacy of the novel VASCADE MVP device compared to these methods needed evaluation.
Does the VASCADE MVP venous closure device reduce complications and post-procedure time compared to Perclose or manual compression in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation?
Cohort (n=858)
No
Does the VASCADE MVP venous closure device reduce complications and post-procedure time compared to Perclose or manual compression in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation?
Absolute Event Rate: 13% vs 11%
p-value: p=0.787
The VASCADE MVP venous closure device reduces both post-procedural operating room time and bed rest duration compared to manual compression and Perclose, without increasing the risk of vascular complications.
Background VASCADE MVP device has garnered attention as a novel femoral venous closure device. Manual compression (MC) is associated with prolonged bed rest and significant patient discomfort. Although Perclose ProGride/ProStyle device reduces bed rest duration, it can result in severe puncture site complications. The adoption of VASCADE MVP is anticipated to reduce the incidence of puncture site complications and facilitate early patient mobilization. Methods A total of 858 patients undergoing catheter ablation were included in this study (MC: n = 196; Perclose: n = 547; VASCADE: n = 115). Perclose device was introduced in January 2018, and VASCADE device in September 2024. Venous closure devices were employed for all suitable femoral puncture sheaths. In the MC group, compression was released after 7 h or the following morning; in the Perclose group after 4 h and in the VASCADE group after three or 4 h. Total post‐procedure time and vascular complications were compared among the groups. Results The total post‐procedure time was significantly shorter with VASCADE compared to Perclose and MC (22.6 ± 8.9 min vs. 29.6 ± 8.2 min and 30.4 ± 9.3 min, p < 0.001). The incidence of re‐bleeding was comparable between Perclose and VASCADE (11% vs. 13%, p = 0.787). No serious complications were observed in VASCADE group, whereas three patients (1%) in Perclose group experienced major complications. Conclusion The use of VASCADE devices safely reduced both total post‐procedure time and bedrest times for complete hemostasis, without an associated increase in complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shiomi et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=858). VASCADE MVP vs. Perclose ProGlide/ProStyle and Manual Compression was evaluated on Incidence of re-bleeding (a primary site-related complication) (p=0.787). The VASCADE venous closure device achieved a comparable rate of re-bleeding to the Perclose device (13% vs. 11%, p=0.787) with no serious complications, while significantly reducing total post-procedure time.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: