Группа авторов

Interventional Cardiology


Скачать книгу

wings against the inner vessel wall. The sliding element with the attached clip is then depressed splitting the sheath and applies the clip to the arterial wall at the end of the assembly. At this stage, it is very important to ensure that the skin does not block the “splitter.” It is reasonable therefore to nick the skin after the proprietary sheath is placed. The procedure is completed by release of the clip using a button “trigger.” In the CLIP trial, which compared the StarClose with manual compression, device success was 87%, with no difference in complications between the groups [29].

Schematic illustration of the StarClose device is delivered through a special sheath provided with the device. Schematic illustration of femoral angiogram 1 year after closure with the StarClose device.

      Exoseal, Femoseal

      Exoseal (Cordis, Bridgewater, NJ) is a passive closure device that consists of deployment of a polyglycolic acid plug (absorbed within 90 days) over the arteriotomy site for hemostasis. The system is delivered through 5–7 Fr sheaths. The minimum diameter of the femoral artery is 5 mm for closure. Time to achieve hemostasis and ambulation appears to be lower than with manual compression. Access through the same site requires a delay of at least 30 days.

      Femoseal (St. Jude Medical Systems, Uppsala, Sweden) comprises a bioabsorbable polymer anchor plate that remains inside the artery and an outer disk. After procedural sheath removal, the anchor seal is deployed within the artery while the outer locking disk is placed on the outer wall of the artery. The arteriotomy is sandwiched between the two disks and held together by a bioabsorbable multifilament.

      Manta

Schematic illustration of MANTA device.

      The available preliminary results report a successful implant in 100% of patients, with a mean time to haemostasis of 2 min and 23 sec and a good safety profile [30].

      Hemostatic patches

      Hemostatic patches were originally designed for military purposes to achieve temporary arterial hemostasis in the battlefield. The mechanisms of action include causing vasoconstriction, creation of a positively charged environment, which attracts negatively charged red blood cells and platelets, or direct promotion of rapid coagulation [31–33]. Available patches include: Syvek Patch using poly‐N‐glucosamine (Marine Polymer Technologies, Danvers, MA); Neptune pad using calcium alginate (Biotronik, Bulach, Switzerland); Closure PAD (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA); Chito‐Seal using chitosan gel (Abbott Vascular, Redwood, CA); SafeSeal using a microporous polysaccharide (Possis Medical, Minneapolis MN, formerly Stasys Patch, St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN); and D‐ Stat Dry using thrombin (Vascular Solutions, Minneapolis, MN) (Table 2.1) [31].

      Evidence‐based issues for vascular closure devices

      The design goals of active vascular closure devices (as replacement of manual compression for management of femoral arterial sheath removal) would include reduction in hemostasis and ambulation times with associated improved patient comfort and reduction in hemorrhagic vascular complications. As experience with this family of devices has grown it is clear that hemostasis and ambulation times can be decreased, but the reduction of vascular complications has not been as well shown. Nevertheless the use of vascular closure devices is widespread and growing over time; a recent large report of Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program showed device use in 75.3% of PCI procedures in 2018 [37].

      There are concerns for the potential to increase rare but serious complications such as infection, arterial occlusion, distal embolization, and arterial wall injury with pseudoaneurysm. In addition, bleeding complications, should they occur, could potentially be more severe than seen with manual compression because manual compression requires normalization of ACT prior to sheath removal while vascular closure devices can be deployed at elevated ACT [4]. In a review of case series of AngioSeal and Perclose, the reported incidence of such complications includes: infection 0.6%; pseudoaneurysm or arteriovenous fistula 0.6–1%; and occlusion or embolism 0.2–0.4% [26]. In a review of 4 years of cardiac catheterizations and interventions at the Mayo Clinic between 2000 and 2003, during which vascular closure devices