Advertisement

Development, preclinical evaluation and validation of a novel quick vascular closure device for transluminal, cardiac and radiological arterial catheterization

  • C. Linti
  • M. Doser
  • H. Planck
  • S. Oberhoffner
  • E. Mueller
  • M. Renardy
  • J. Biesinger
  • B. Neumann
  • K. Stang
  • T. O. Greiner
  • C. Schlensak
  • S. Krajewski
  • H. P. Wendel
Clinical Applications of Biomaterials Original Research
  • 58 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Clinical Applications of Biomaterials

Abstract

Following percutaneous coronary intervention, vascular closure devices (VCDs) are increasingly used to reduce time to ambulation, enhance patient comfort, and reduce potential complications compared with traditional manual compression. Newer techniques include complicated, more or less automated suture devices, local application of pads or the use of metal clips and staples. These techniques often have the disadvantage of being time consuming, expensive or not efficient enough. The VCD failure rate in association with vascular complications of 2.0–9.5%, depending on the type of VCD, is still not acceptable. Therefore, the aim of this study is to develop a self-expanding quick vascular closure device (QVCD) made from a bioabsorbable elastic polymer that can be easily applied through the placed introducer sheath. Bioabsorbable block-co-polymers were synthesized and the chemical and mechanical degradation were determined by in vitro tests. The best fitting polymer was selected for further investigation and for microinjection moulding. After comprehensive haemocompatibility analyses in vitro, QVCDs were implanted in arterial vessels following arteriotomy for different time points in sheep to investigate the healing process. The in vivo tests proved that the new QVCD can be safely placed in the arteriotomy hole through the existing sheath instantly sealing the vessel. The degradation time of 14 days found in vitro was sufficient for vessel healing. After 4 weeks, the remaining QVCD material was covered by neointima. Overall, our experiments showed the safety and feasibility of applying this novel QVCD through an existing arterial sheath and hence encourage future work with larger calibers.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study was funded by the Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) under the grant no. BMBF 01KQ0902 in the frame of the Gesundheitsregion REGiNA.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kern MJ, Lerman A, Bech JW, De Bruyne B, Eeckhout E, Fearon WF, et al. Physiological assessment of coronary artery disease in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization, Council on Clinical Cardiology. Circulation. 2006;114:1321–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biancari F, D’Andrea V, Di Marco C, Savino G, Tiozzo V, Catania A. Meta-analysis of randomized trials on the efficacy of vascular closure devices after diagnostic angiography and angioplasty. Am Heart J. 2010;159:518–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Buuren F. 25th Report of performance figures of the heart catheterization laboratories in Germany. Der Kardiol. 2010;6:502–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Seldinger SI. Catheter replacement of the needle in percutaneous arteriography; a new technique. Acta Radiol. 1953;39:368–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hepp WKH. editor. Interventionelle Maßnahmen in Gefäßchirurgie. München; 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Erbel R, Pflicht, B, Kahlert, P, Konorza, T, editor. Herzkatheter-Manual: Diagnostik und interventionelle Therapie: Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag; 2012.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hon LQ, Ganeshan A, Thomas SM, Warakaulle D, Jagdish J, Uberoi R. An overview of vascular closure devices: what every radiologist should know. Eur J Radiol. 2010;73:181–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patel R, Muller-Hulsbeck S, Morgan R, Uberoi R. Vascular closure devices in interventional radiology practice. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2015;38:781–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dauerman HL, Applegate RJ, Cohen DJ. Vascular closure devices: the second decade. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1617–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Piper WD, Malenka DJ, Ryan TJ Jr, Shubrooks SJ Jr, O’Connor GT, Robb JF, et al. Predicting vascular complications in percutaneous coronary interventions. Am Heart J. 2003;145:1022–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hon L-Q, Ganeshan A, Thomas SM, Warakaulle D, Jagdish J, Uberoi R. Vascular closure devices: a comparative overview. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2009;38:33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koreny M, Riedmuller E, Nikfardjam M, Siostrzonek P, Mullner M. Arterial puncture closing devices compared with standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;291:350–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO 10993 Biological evaluation of medical devices. 2010.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Narayanaswamy M, Wright KC, Kandarpa K. Animal models for atherosclerosis, restenosis, and endovascular graft research. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11:5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McMillen C. The sheep—an ideal model for biomedical research? ANZCCART News. 2001;2:1–4.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Byrom MJ, Bannon PG, White GH, Ng MK. Animal models for the assessment of novel vascular conduits. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52:176–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ni RF, Kranokpiraksa P, Pavcnik D, Kakizawa H, Uchida BT, Keller FS, et al. Testing percutaneous arterial closure devices: an animal model. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2009;32:313–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kansey KR, Evans DG, McGill LD, Nash JC. Feasibility testing of a bioresorbable hemostatic puncture closure device. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;17:A263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gargiulo NJ 3rd, Veith FJ, Ohki T, Scher LA, Berdejo GL, Lipsitz EC, et al. Histologic and duplex comparison of the perclose and angio-seal percutaneous closure devices. Vascular. 2007;15:24–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lochow P, Silber S. Immediate hemostasis of the femoral artery after heart catheterization: the present situation of closure systems]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2004;129:1753–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sanborn TA, Gibbs HH, Brinker JA, Knopf WD, Kosinski EJ, Roubin GS. A multicenter randomized trial comparing a percutaneous collagen hemostasis device with conventional manual compression after diagnostic angiography and angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22:1273–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wong SC, Bachinsky W, Cambier P, Stoler R, Aji J, Rogers JH, et al. A randomized comparison of a novel bioabsorbable vascular closure device versus manual compression in the achievement of hemostasis after percutaneous femoral procedures: the ECLIPSE (Ensure’s Vascular Closure Device Speeds Hemostasis Trial). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:785–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anderson JM, Rodriguez A, Chang DT. Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol. 2008;20:86–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sefton MV, Gorbet MB. Biomaterial-associated thrombosis: roles of coagulation factors, complement, platelets and leukocytes. Biomaterials. 2004;25:5681–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Silver FH. Comparison of the histological responses observed at the arterial puncture site after employing manual compression. CathLab Dig. 2003;9:11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Linti
    • 1
  • M. Doser
    • 1
  • H. Planck
    • 1
  • S. Oberhoffner
    • 1
  • E. Mueller
    • 2
  • M. Renardy
    • 2
  • J. Biesinger
    • 3
  • B. Neumann
    • 3
  • K. Stang
    • 3
  • T. O. Greiner
    • 4
  • C. Schlensak
    • 3
  • S. Krajewski
    • 3
  • H. P. Wendel
    • 3
  1. 1.German Institutes of Textile and Fiber Research (DITF)DenkendorfGermany
  2. 2.ITV Denkendorf Produktservice GmbHDenkendorfGermany
  3. 3.Department of Thoracic, Cardiac and Vascular SurgeryClinical Research Laboratory, University Hospital TuebingenTuebingenGermany
  4. 4.Department of General, Visceral and Transplant SurgeryUniversity Hospital of TuebingenTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations