PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 8, 2026European Heart Journal0 citations

Combined use of suture and plug-based devices for femoral access hemostasis and vascular outcomes in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

View Full Paper
GVGabriele VoluckeAMA MoezSSS Shah

Key Result

Combined suture and plug-based vascular closure devices reduced major vascular complications by 50% and device failure by 74% compared to dual suture devices in TAVR.

Key Points

  • This study aims to compare the effectiveness of dual suture-based arterial closure versus combined suture and plug-based closure in TAVR procedures.
  • Conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase until October 2024.
  • Assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
  • Performed data analysis with Review Manager version 5.4, reporting outcomes as risk ratios or mean differences.
  • The combined suture and plug-based closure reduced major vascular complications by 50%.
  • Minor vascular complications decreased by 30% with the combined method.
  • VCD failure was significantly lower by 74% in the combined approach compared to dual suture.

Structured PICO

Does a combined suture and plug-based vascular closure device reduce vascular complications and bleeding compared to dual suture-based closure in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR?

P
Population
Up to 2,304 patients undergoing transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) for severe aortic stenosis.
I
Intervention
Combined suture and plug-based vascular closure device (VCD) approach
C
Comparator
Dual suture-based arterial closure
O
Outcome
Hemostasis after TAVR (assessed via major vascular bleeding and major vascular complications)safety

In patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR, a combined suture and plug-based vascular closure strategy significantly reduces major vascular complications and device failure compared to a dual suture-based approach.

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) is the preferred treatment for severe aortic stenosis. However, vascular complications and bleeding remain common after transfemoral TAVR, impacting outcomes. While suture-based and plug-based vascular closure devices (VCDs) are used, a combined suture and plug-based approach may offer benefits. Purpose This study compares the effectiveness of dual suture-based arterial closure versus combined suture and plug-based closure in achieving hemostasis after TAVR. Methodology A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was conducted until October 2024. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Data analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.4, with pooled outcomes reported as risk ratios or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results The meta-analysis included up to 2,304 patients across multiple studies. Major vascular bleeding (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.39–1.34, p = 0.30) and minor vascular bleeding (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.58–1.28, p = 0.47) showed no significant difference in the two groups. However, the suture plus plug-based vascular closure device significantly reduced major vascular complications by 50% (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.33–0.76, p = 0.001) and minor vascular complications by 30% (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51–0.96, p = 0.03). VCD failure was 74% lower (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.15–0.47, p 0.00001) in the suture plus plug-based group and unplanned interventions showed no significant difference (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.38–1.22, p = 0.19) in this group. Conclusion The suture plus plug-based VCD demonstrated superiority over dual suture device by significantly reducing vascular complications and device failure incidents.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Volucke et al. (2025) studied this question. Combined suture and plug-based vascular closure devices reduced major vascular complications by 50% and device failure by 74% compared to dual suture devices in TAVR.

synapsesocial.com/papers/698828ab0fc35cd7a88484afhttps://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf784.2975
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1A Comparison of two Vascular Closure Strategies in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Suture and Plug versus Suture alone: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.2025
  2. 2Combination of Suture‐Plug Vascular Closure Devices Versus Suture‐Only Devices Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis2025 · 1 citations
  3. 3Percutaneous femoral access closure and prognosis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis2025
  4. 4Outcomes with plug‐based versus suture‐based vascular closure device after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis2023 · 14 citations
  5. 5A propensity-matched comparison of plug- versus suture-based vascular closure after TAVI2025 · 9 citations