Skip to main content

Large-bore Access and Closure: Optimizing Vascular Access and Management of Complications


Purpose of Review

The goal of this review is to provide the reader with an overview of how to safely obtain large-bore access, descriptions of closure devices and techniques, and methods of identifying and troubleshooting common complications.

Recent Findings

Traditional methods of femoral access utilizing only anatomic landmarks should be supplemented with preprocedural imaging, ultrasound guidance, and micropuncture to ensure the adequacy of the femoral access for the intended procedure as well as to reduce the risk of complications. Closure of larger arteriotomies requires familiarity with both suture-based devices as well as collagen-based devices. A familiarity with dedicated closure devices is also necessary as each has its own learning curve as well as risks and benefits. Large-bore access carries increased risks of complications including bleeding, perforation, pseudoaneurysms, distal limb ischemia, and arteriovenous fistulas.


Large-bore access is rapidly becoming a skill necessary for all interventional cardiologists. Due to the increased risks involved, familiarity with appropriate techniques and bailout strategies is critical.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Lechner G, et al. The relationship between the common femoral artery, the inguinal crease, and the inguinal ligament: a guide to accurate angiographic puncture. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1988;11(3):165–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pitta SR, et al. Location of femoral artery access and correlation with vascular complications. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;78(2):294–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Doyle BJ, et al. Major femoral bleeding complications after percutaneous coronary intervention: incidence, predictors, and impact on long-term survival among 17,901 patients treated at the Mayo Clinic from 1994 to 2005. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1(2):202–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sherev DA, Shaw RE, Brent BN. Angiographic predictors of femoral access site complications: implication for planned percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2005;65(2):196–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Apfaltrer P, et al. Aortoiliac CT angiography for planning transcutaneous aortic valve implantation: aortic root anatomy and frequency of clinically significant incidental findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(4):939–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Seto AH, et al. Real-time ultrasound guidance facilitates femoral arterial access and reduces vascular complications: FAUST (Femoral Arterial Access With Ultrasound Trial). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(7):751–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ben-Dor I, et al. Micropuncture technique for femoral access is associated with lower vascular complications compared to standard needle. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;97(7):1379–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bogabathina H, et al. Does micropuncture technique really help reduce vascular complications? Cardiovasc Revasc Med, 2018. 19(7 Pt A):762–765.

  9. Jacobi JA, Schussler JM, Johnson KB. Routine femoral head fluoroscopy to reduce complications in coronary catheterization. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2009;22(1):7–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lata K, et al. Pre-close technique of percutaneous closure for delayed hemostasis of large-bore femoral sheaths. J Interv Cardiol. 2018;31(4):504–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Choi CH, et al. A novel technique for postclosure of large-bore sheaths using two Perclose devices. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;97(5):905–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Amponsah MK, et al. Safety and efficacy of a novel “hybrid closure” technique in large-bore arteriotomies. Int J Angiol. 2017;26(2):116–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Gmeiner JMD, et al. Dual ProGlide versus ProGlide and FemoSeal for vascular access haemostasis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. EuroIntervention. 2022;18(10):812–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bui QT, et al. “Double wire” angio-seal closure technique after balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;75(4):488–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Thawabi M, Cohen M, Wasty N. Post-close technique for arteriotomy hemostasis after impella removal. J Invasive Cardiol. 2019;31(6):E159.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wood DA, et al. Pivotal clinical study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the MANTA percutaneous vascular closure device. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(7): e007258.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dumpies O, et al. Manta versus Perclose ProGlide vascular closure device after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: initial experience from a large European center. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2022;37:34–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Medranda GA, et al. Propensity-matched comparison of large-bore access closure in transcatheter aortic valve replacement using MANTA versus Perclose: a real-world experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;98(3):580–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. van Wiechen MP, et al. Suture- or plug-based large-bore arteriotomy closure: a pilot randomized controlled trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14(2):149–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. • Abdel-Wahab M, et al. Comparison of a pure plug-based versus a primary suture-based vascular closure device strategy for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the CHOICE-CLOSURE Randomized Clinical Trial. Circulation, 2022. 145(3):170–83. Randomized trial comparing suture based vs plug based closure techniques.

  21. Genereux P, et al. Clinical outcomes using a new crossover balloon occlusion technique for percutaneous closure after transfemoral aortic valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(8):861–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lichaa H, Wollmuth J, Tayal R. Dry field closure of large-bore access with iliac artery angioplasty through the ipsilateral sheath: the single-access dry-closure technique. J Invasive Cardiol. 2021;33(7):E516–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cheney AE, McCabe JM. Alternative percutaneous access for large bore devices. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(6): e007707.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Arnett DM, et al. Caliber and fitness of the axillary artery as a conduit for large-bore cardiovascular procedures. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;91(1):150–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tayal R, et al. CT angiography analysis of axillary artery diameter versus common femoral artery diameter: implications for axillary approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with hostile aortoiliac segment and advanced lung disease. Int J Vasc Med. 2016;2016:3610705.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Tayal R, et al. Deployment of acute mechanical circulatory support devices via the axillary artery. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2019;17(5):353–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dawson K, et al. Emerging role of large-bore percutaneous axillary vascular access: a step-by-step guide. Interv Cardiol. 2020;15: e07.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. •• McCabe JM, et al. Percutaneous axillary access for placement of microaxial ventricular support devices: the axillary Access Registry to Monitor Safety (ARMS). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14(1):e009657. Findings from this study demonstrate the safety and efficacy of axillary access for large bore access.

  29. Greenbaum AB, et al. Caval-aortic access to allow transcatheter aortic valve replacement in otherwise ineligible patients: initial human experience. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2014. 63(25 Pt A):2795–804.

  30. Bruce CG, et al. Transcatheter electrosurgery: a narrative review. Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2023:e012019.

  31. Greenbaum AB, et al. Transcaval access and closure for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a prospective investigation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(5):511–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Stone PA, et al. Ten-year experience of vascular surgeon management of iatrogenic pseudoaneurysms: do anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet medications matter? Ann Vasc Surg. 2016;30:45–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gabriel M, et al. Location of femoral artery puncture site and the risk of postcatheterization pseudoaneurysm formation. Int J Cardiol. 2007;120(2):167–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Naddaf A, et al. Predictors of groin access pseudoaneurysm complication: a 10-year institutional experience. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2020;54(1):42–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kurra V, et al. Prevalence of significant peripheral artery disease in patients evaluated for percutaneous aortic valve insertion: preprocedural assessment with multidetector computed tomography. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137(5):1258–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cheng R, et al. Complications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for treatment of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of 1,866 adult patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97(2):610–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Juo YY, et al. Efficacy of distal perfusion cannulae in preventing limb ischemia during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Artif Organs. 2017;41(11):E263–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kaki A, et al. Large bore occlusive sheath management. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;93(4):678–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lichaa H. The “lend a hand” external bypass technique: external radial to femoral bypass for antegrade perfusion of an ischemic limb with occlusive large bore sheath - a novel and favorable approach. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96(6):E614–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajiv Tayal MD, MPH.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Hussein Rahim declares no competing interests. Muhammed Ali Rahim declares no competing interests. Rajiv Tayal declares no competing interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rahim, H., Rahim, M. & Tayal, R. Large-bore Access and Closure: Optimizing Vascular Access and Management of Complications. Curr Treat Options Cardio Med 25, 283–296 (2023).

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: