Manual, Mechanical, and Device Hemostasis

  • Pei-Hsiu Huang
  • Ayman Khairy M. Hassan
  • Frederic S. Resnic
Chapter

Abstract

Optimal management of vascular access sites to assure hemostasis while minimizing the risk of vascular injury or complication has been a primary challenge of all endovascular techniques. While manual compression of the arterial access site had been the standard approach to hemostasis for many procedures, tools and techniques for mechanical compression and the development of implantable vascular closure devices now provide a variety of options for the management of vascular access sites. Given the many options for vascular access site management, it is encumbant on the endovascular expert to incorporate available evidence, as well as their own experience and expertise, in the selection of a access site management strategy. In this chapter, we review the evidence for the use of various vascular access site management techniques including manual compression, mechanical compression and vascular closure devices, and explore the unique advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

References

  1. 1.
    Biancari F, D'Andrea V, Di Marco C, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized trials on the efficacy of vascular closure devices after diagnostic angiography and angioplasty. Am Heart J. 2010;159:518–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2009.12.027.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koreny M, Riedmüller E, Nikfardjam M, et al. Arterial puncture closing devices compared with standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;291:350–7.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.3.350.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Juergens CP, Leung DYC, Crozier JA, et al. Patient tolerance and resource utilization associated with an arterial closure versus an external compression device after percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2004;63:166–70.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.20161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marso SP, Amin AP, House JA, et al. Association between use of bleeding avoidance strategies and risk of periprocedural bleeding among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA. 2010;303:2156–64.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.708.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farooq V, Goedhart D, Ludman P, et al. Relationship between femoral vascular closure devices and short-term mortality from 271 845 percutaneous coronary intervention procedures performed in the United Kingdom between 2006 and 2011: a propensity score–corrected analysis from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:e003560.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.003560.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011;377:1409–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60404-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Romagnoli E, Biondi-Zoccai G, Sciahbasi A, et al. Radial versus femoral randomized investigation in ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: the RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:2481–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.06.017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bernat I, Horak D, Stasek J, et al. ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by radial or femoral approach in a multicenter randomized clinical trial: the STEMI-RADIAL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:964–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.08.1651.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabró P, et al. Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet. 2015;385:2465–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60292-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dehmer GJ, Weaver D, Roe MT, et al. A contemporary view of diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: a report from the CathPCI Registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, 2010 through June 2011. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:2017–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.08.966.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nader RG, Garcia JC, Drushal K, Pesek T. Clinical evaluation of Syvek Patch in patients undergoing interventional, EPS and diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures. J Invasive Cardiol. 2002;14:305–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mlekusch W, Dick P, Haumer M, et al. Arterial puncture site management after percutaneous transluminal procedures using a hemostatic wound dressing (Clo-Sur P.A.D.) versus conventional manual compression: a randomized controlled trial. J Endovasc Ther. 2006;13:23–31.  https://doi.org/10.1583/05-1679.1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Applegate RJ, Sacrinty MT, Kutcher MA, et al. Propensity score analysis of vascular complications after diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention using thrombin hemostatic patch-facilitated manual compression. J Invasive Cardiol. 2007;19:164–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Balzer JO, Schwarz W, Thalhammer A, et al. Postinterventional percutaneous closure of femoral artery access sites using the Clo-Sur PAD device: initial findings. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:693–700.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0279-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nguyen N, Hasan S, Caufield L, et al. Randomized controlled trial of topical hemostasis pad use for achieving vascular hemostasis following percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;69:801–7.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.21024.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mlekusch W, Minar E, Dick P, et al. Access site management after peripheral percutaneous transluminal procedures: Neptune pad compared with conventional manual compression. Radiology. 2008;249:1058–63.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2492080181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tavris DR, Wang Y, Jacobs S, et al. Bleeding and vascular complications at the femoral access site following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): an evaluation of hemostasis strategies. J Invasive Cardiol. 2012;24:328–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pracyk JB, Wall TC, Longabaugh JP, et al. A randomized trial of vascular hemostasis techniques to reduce femoral vascular complications after coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 1998;81:970–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lehmann KG, Heath-Lange SJ, Ferris ST. Randomized comparison of hemostasis techniques after invasive cardiovascular procedures. Am Heart J. 1999;138:1118–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Amin FR, Yousufuddin M, Stables R, et al. Femoral haemostasis after transcatheter therapeutic intervention: a prospective randomised study of the Angio-Seal device vs. the FemoStop device. Int J Cardiol. 2000;76:235–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Benson LM, Wunderly D, Perry B, et al. Determining best practice: comparison of three methods of femoral sheath removal after cardiac interventional procedures. Heart Lung. 2005;34:115–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2004.06.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gall S, Tarique A, Natarajan A, Zaman A. Rapid ambulation after coronary angiography via femoral artery access: a prospective study of 1,000 patients. J Invasive Cardiol. 2006;18:106–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Walker SB, Cleary S, Higgins M. Comparison of the FemoStop device and manual pressure in reducing groin puncture site complications following coronary angioplasty and coronary stent placement. Int J Nurs Pract. 2001;7:366–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Simon AW. Use of a mechanical pressure device for hemostasis following cardiac catheterization. Am J Crit Care. 1994;3:62–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Semler HJ. Transfemoral catheterization: mechanical versus manual control of bleeding. Radiology. 1985;154:234–5.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.154.1.3880610.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bogart MA. Time to hemostasis: a comparison of manual versus mechanical compression of the femoral artery. Am J Crit Care. 1995;4:149–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hassan AKM, Hasan-Ali H, Ali AS. A new femoral compression device compared with manual compression for bleeding control after coronary diagnostic catheterizations. Egypt Heart J. 2014;66:233–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehj.2013.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hassan AKM, Hasan-Ali H, Demetry SR, et al. Early sheath removal after percutaneous coronary intervention using Assiut femoral compression device is feasible and safe. Results of a randomized controlled trial. Egypt Heart J. 2015;67:69–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehj.2014.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Camenzind E, Grossholz M, Urban P, et al. Collagen application versus manual compression: a prospective randomized trial for arterial puncture site closure after coronary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;24:655–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Carey D, Martin JR, Moore CA, et al. Complications of femoral artery closure devices. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2001;52:3–7.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1522-726X(200101)52:1<3::AID-CCD1002>3.0.CO;2-G.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gwechenberger M, Katzenschlager R, Heinz G, et al. Use of a collagen plug versus manual compression for sealing arterial puncture site after cardiac catheterization. Angiology. 1997;48:121–6.  https://doi.org/10.1177/000331979704800204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sanborn TA, Gibbs HH, Brinker JA, et al. A multicenter randomized trial comparing a percutaneous collagen hemotasis device with conventional manual compression after diagnostic angiography and angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22:1273–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(93)90529-A.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schickel SI, Adkisson P, Miracle V, Cronin SN. Achieving femoral artery hemostasis after cardiac catheterization: a comparison of methods. Am J Crit Care. 1999;8:406–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schräder R, Steinbacher S, Burger W, et al. Collagen application for sealing of arterial puncture sites in comparison to pressure dressing: a randomized trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn. 1992;27:298–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Silber S, Björvik A, Mühling H, Rösch A. Usefulness of collagen plugging with VasoSeal after PTCA as compared to manual compression with identical sheath dwell times. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn. 1998;43:421–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Slaughter PM, Chetty R, Flintoft VF, et al. A single center randomized trial assessing use of a vascular hemostasis device vs. conventional manual compression following PTCA: what are the potential resource savings? Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn. 1995;34:210–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nikolsky E, Mehran R, Halkin A, et al. Vascular complications associated with arteriotomy closure devices in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:1200–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.06.048.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vaitkus PT. A meta-analysis of percutaneous vascular closure devices after diagnostic catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention. J Invasive Cardiol. 2004;16:243–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kussmaul WG, Buchbinder M, Whitlow PL, et al. Rapid arterial hemostasis and decreased access site complications after cardiac catheterization and angioplasty: results of a randomized trial of a novel hemostatic device. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25:1685–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Deuling JHH, Vermeulen RP, Anthonio RA, et al. Closure of the femoral artery after cardiac catheterization: a comparison of Angio-Seal, StarClose, and manual compression. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;71:518–23.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.21429.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Martin JL, Pratsos A, Magargee E, et al. A randomized trial comparing compression, Perclose Proglide and Angio-Seal VIP for arterial closure following percutaneous coronary intervention: the CAP trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;71:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.21333.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Azmoon S, Pucillo AL, Aronow WS, et al. Vascular complications after percutaneous coronary intervention following hemostasis with the Mynx vascular closure device versus the AngioSeal vascular closure device. J Invasive Cardiol. 2010;22:175–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ward SR, Casale P, Raymond R, et al. Efficacy and safety of a hemostatic puncture closure device with early ambulation after coronary angiography. Angio-Seal Investigators. Am J Cardiol. 1998;81:569–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Applegate RJ, Grabarczyk MA, Little WC, et al. Vascular closure devices in patients treated with anticoagulation and IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors during percutaneous revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:78–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(02)01924-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cura FA, Kapadia SR, L'Allier PL, et al. Safety of femoral closure devices after percutaneous coronary interventions in the era of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa platelet blockade. Am J Cardiol. 2000;86(7):780–2. A9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Duffin DC, Muhlestein JB, Allisson SB, et al. Femoral arterial puncture management after percutaneous coronary procedures: a comparison of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between manual compression and two different vascular closure devices. J Invasive Cardiol. 2001;13:354–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Applegate RJ, Rankin KM, Little WC, et al. Restick following initial AngioSeal use. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003;58:181–4.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.10419.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wong SC, Bachinsky W, Cambier P, 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2009.06.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kamusella P, Wissgott C, Jahnke T, et al. Percutaneous vascular closure system based on an extravascular, bioabsorbable polyglycolic plug (ExoSeal): results from 1000 patients. Clin Med Insights Cardiol. 2014;8:49–52.  https://doi.org/10.4137/CMC.S15229.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kara K, Mahabadi AA, Rothe H, et al. Safety and effectiveness of a novel vascular closure device: a prospective study of the ExoSeal compared to the Angio-Seal and ProGlide. J Endovasc Ther. 2014;21:822–8.  https://doi.org/10.1583/14-4744MR.1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Grandhi R, Zhang X, Panczykowski D, et al. Incidence of delayed angiographic femoral artery complications using the ExoSeal vascular closure device. Interv Neuroradiol. 2015;21:401–6.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1591019915581776.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schmelter C, Liebl A, Poullos N, et al. Suitability of ExoSeal vascular closure device for antegrade femoral artery puncture site closure. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013;36:659–68.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-012-0501-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Holm NR, Sindberg B, Schou M, et al. Randomised comparison of manual compression and FemoSeal™ vascular closure device for closure after femoral artery access coronary angiography: the Closure Devices Used in Everyday Practice (CLOSE-UP) study. EuroIntervention. 2014;10:183–90.  https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJV10I2A31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schulz-Schüpke S, Helde S, Gewalt S, et al. Comparison of vascular closure devices vs manual compression after femoral artery puncture: the ISAR-CLOSURE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312:1981–7.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.15305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wanitschek MM, Suessenbacher A, Dörler J, et al. Safety and efficacy of femoral artery closure with the FemoSeal® device after coronary angiography using a 7 French sheath. Perfusion. 2011;26:447–52.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0267659111409967.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bavry AA, Raymond RE, Bhatt DL, et al. Efficacy of a novel procedure sheath and closure device during diagnostic catheterization: the multicenter randomized clinical trial of the FISH device. J Invasive Cardiol. 2008;20:152–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Scheinert D, Sievert H, Turco MA, et al. The safety and efficacy of an extravascular, water-soluble sealant for vascular closure: initial clinical results for Mynx. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;70:627–33.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.21353.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fargen KM, Velat GJ, Lawson MF, et al. Occurrence of angiographic femoral artery complications after vascular closure with Mynx and AngioSeal. J Neurointerv Surg. 2013;5:161–4.  https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2011-010217.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Baker NC, Escarcega RO, Lipinski MJ, et al. Active versus passive anchoring vascular closure devices following percutaneous coronary intervention: a safety and efficacy comparative analysis. J Interv Cardiol. 2016;29:108–12.  https://doi.org/10.1111/joic.12264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Fields JD, Liu KC, Lee DS, et al. Femoral artery complications associated with the Mynx closure device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31:1737–40.  https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A2153.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Noor S, Meyers S, Curl R. Successful reduction of surgeries secondary to arterial access site complications: a retrospective review at a single center with an extravascular closure device. Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;44:345–9.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1538574410366760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Islam MA, George AK, Norris M. Popliteal artery embolization with the Mynx closure device. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;75:35–7.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.22203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Gupta A, Sadiq I, Borer S. Distal embolization from Mynx device. Conn Med. 2012;76:545–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rao S, Kaul P, Stouffer GA. Successful aspiration of Mynx vascular closure device sealant that embolized to the popliteal artery. J Invasive Cardiol. 2013;25:E172–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kumar A, Matheny ME, Ho KKL, et al. The data extraction and longitudinal trend analysis network study of distributed automated postmarket cardiovascular device safety surveillance. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Out. 2015;8:38–46.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.001123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Resnic FS, Majithia A, Marinac-Dabic D, et al. Registry-based prospective, active surveillance of medical-device safety. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:526–35.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1516333.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Garasic JM, Marin L, Anderson RD. Acute evaluation of the Mynx vascular closure device during arterial re-puncture in an ovine model. J Invasive Cardiol. 2009;21:283–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Carere RG, Webb JG, Ahmed T, Dodek AA. Initial experience using Prostar: a new device for percutaneous suture-mediated closure of arterial puncture sites. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn. 1996;37:367–72.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0304(199604)37:4<367::AID-CCD5>3.0.CO;2-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Assali AR, Sdringola S, Moustapha A, et al. Outcome of access site in patients treated with platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in the era of closure devices. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003;58:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.10384.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Baim DS, Knopf WD, Hinohara T, et al. Suture-mediated closure of the femoral access site after cardiac catheterization: results of the Suture to Ambulate and Discharge (STAND I and STAND II) trials. Am J Cardiol. 2000;85:864–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Nasu K, Tsuchikane E, Sumitsuji S, Investigators PARADISE. Clinical effectiveness of the Prostar XL suture-mediated percutaneous vascular closure device following PCI: results of the Perclose Accelerated Ambulation and Discharge (PARADISE) trial. J Invasive Cardiol. 2003;15:251–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Starnes BW, O'Donnell SD, Gillespie DL, et al. Percutaneous arterial closure in peripheral vascular disease: a prospective randomized evaluation of the Perclose device. J Vasc Surg. 2003;38:263–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Tron C, Koning R, Eltchaninoff H, et al. A randomized comparison of a percutaneous suture device versus manual compression for femoral artery hemostasis after PTCA. J Interv Cardiol. 2003;16:217–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Gerckens U, Cattelaens N, Lampe EG, Grube E. Management of arterial puncture site after catheterization procedures: evaluating a suture-mediated closure device. Am J Cardiol. 1999;83:1658–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Noguchi T, Miyazaki S, Yasuda S, et al. A randomised controlled trial of Prostar Plus for haemostasis in patients after coronary angioplasty. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2000;19:451–5.  https://doi.org/10.1053/ejvs.1999.1071.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Rickli H, Unterweger M, Sütsch G, et al. Comparison of costs and safety of a suture-mediated closure device with conventional manual compression after coronary artery interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2002;57:297–302.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.10294.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Wetter DR, Rickli H, Smekal von A, Amann FW. Early sheath removal after coronary artery interventions with use of a suture-mediated closure device: clinical outcome and results of Doppler US evaluation. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11:1033–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kornowski R, Brandes S, Teplitsky I, et al. Safety and efficacy of a 6 French Perclose arterial suturing device following percutaneous coronary interventions: a pilot evaluation. J Invasive Cardiol. 2002;14:741–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Chamberlin JR, Lardi AB, McKeever LS, et al. Use of vascular sealing devices (VasoSeal and Perclose) versus assisted manual compression (Femostop) in transcatheter coronary interventions requiring abciximab (ReoPro). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 1999;47:143–7.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-726X(199906)47:2<143::AID-CCD1>3.0.CO;2-M.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Carere RG, Webb JG, Buller CE, et al. Suture closure of femoral arterial puncture sites after coronary angioplasty followed by same-day discharge. Am Heart J. 2000;139:52–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Veerina KK. Arterial closure is now the first step. Cath Lab Digest. 2011;19(9):32.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Turi ZG, Wortham DC, Sampognaro GC, et al. Use of a novel access technology for femoral artery catheterization: results of the RECITAL trial. J Invasive Cardiol. 2013;25:13–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Doyle BJ, Godfrey MJ, Lennon RJ, et al. Initial experience with the Cardiva Boomerang vascular closure device in diagnostic catheterization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;69:203–8.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.20937.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Kiesz RS, Wiernek BK, Wiernek SL, et al. Cardiva Catalyst II vascular access management device in percutaneous diagnostic and interventional procedures with same-day discharge (Catalyst II trial). J Endovasc Ther. 2011;18:46–53.  https://doi.org/10.1583/10-3237.1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Goswami NJ, Smalling RG, Sinha S, et al. Comparison of the Boomerang wire vascular access management system versus manual compression alone during percutaneous diagnostic and interventional cardiovascular procedures: the Boomerang™ Wire Vascular Access Management Trial II. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;87:75–81.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.25842.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Seltzer S, Alejos JC, Levi DS. Experience with the Cardiva Boomerang Catalyst system in pediatric cardiac catheterization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;74:476–81.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.22002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Hermiller J, Simonton C, Hinohara T, et al. Clinical experience with a circumferential clip-based vascular closure device in diagnostic catheterization. J Invasive Cardiol. 2005;17:504–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Hermiller JB, Simonton C, Hinohara T, et al. The StarClose vascular closure system: interventional results from the CLIP study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;68:677–83.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.20922.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Branzan D, Sixt S, Rastan A, et al. Safety and efficacy of the StarClose vascular closure system using 7-F and 8-F sheath sizes: a consecutive single-center analysis. J Endovasc Ther. 2009;16:475–82.  https://doi.org/10.1583/09-2761R.1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Robertson L, Andras A, Colgan F, Jackson R. Vascular closure devices for femoral arterial puncture site haemostasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;3:CD009541.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009541.pub2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Jiang J, Zou J, Ma H, et al. Network meta-analysis of randomized trials on the safety of vascular closure devices for femoral arterial puncture site haemostasis. Sci Rep. 2015;5:13761.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13761.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Ahmed B, Piper WD, Malenka D, et al. Significantly improved vascular complications among women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the Northern New England Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:423–9.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.109.860494.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Applegate RJ, Sacrinty MT, Kutcher MA, et al. Trends in vascular complications after diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention via the femoral artery, 1998 to 2007. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1:317–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2008.03.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Arora N, Matheny ME, Sepke C, Resnic FS. A propensity analysis of the risk of vascular complications after cardiac catheterization procedures with the use of vascular closure devices. Am Heart J. 2007;153:606–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2006.12.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Sanborn TA, Ebrahimi R, Manoukian SV, et al. Impact of femoral vascular closure devices and antithrombotic therapy on access site bleeding in acute coronary syndromes: the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:57–62.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.109.896704.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Doyle BJ, Ting HH, Bell MR, 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;1:202–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2007.12.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Roe MT, Messenger JC, Weintraub WS, et al. Treatments, trends, and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction and percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:254–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.05.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Dauerman HL, Rao SV, Resnic FS, Applegate RJ. Bleeding avoidance strategies. Consensus and controversy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.02.039.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Tavris DR, Gallauresi BA, Lin B, et al. Risk of local adverse events following cardiac catheterization by hemostasis device use and gender. J Invasive Cardiol. 2004;16:459–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Dangas G, Mehran R, Kokolis S, et al. Vascular complications after percutaneous coronary interventions following hemostasis with manual compression versus arteriotomy closure devices. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38:638–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Bangalore S, Arora N, Resnic FS. Vascular closure device failure: frequency and implications: a propensity-matched analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:549–56.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.109.877407.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Vidi VD, Matheny ME, Govindarajulu US, et al. Vascular closure device failure in contemporary practice. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:837–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2012.05.005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Farouque HMO, Tremmel JA, Raissi Shabari F, et al. Risk factors for the development of retroperitoneal hematoma after percutaneous coronary intervention in the era of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and vascular closure devices. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:363–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.10.042.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Tiroch KA, Arora N, Matheny ME, et al. Risk predictors of retroperitoneal hemorrhage following percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2008;102:1473–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.07.039.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Resnic FS, Blake GJ, Ohno-Machado L, et al. Vascular closure devices and the risk of vascular complications after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients receiving glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors. Am J Cardiol. 2001;88:493–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Warren BS, Warren SG, Miller SD. Predictors of complications and learning curve using the Angio-Seal closure device following interventional and diagnostic catheterization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 1999;48:162–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Balzer JO, Scheinert D, Diebold T, et al. Postinterventional transcutaneous suture of femoral artery access sites in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease: a study of 930 patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2001;53:174–81.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.1144.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Resnic FS, Wang TY, Arora N, et al. Quantifying the learning curve in the use of a novel vascular closure device: an analysis of the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) CathPCI Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:82–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2011.09.017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Applegate RJ, Sacrinty M, Kutcher MA, et al. Vascular complications with newer generations of AngioSeal vascular closure devices. J Interv Cardiol. 2006;19:67–74.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8183.2006.00107.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Lasic Z, Mehran R, Dangas G, et al. Comparison of safety and efficacy between first and second generation of Angio-Seal closure devices in interventional patients. J Invasive Cardiol. 2004;16:356–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Ben-Dor I, Looser P, Bernardo N, et al. Comparison of closure strategies after balloon aortic valvuloplasty: suture mediated versus collagen based versus manual. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;78:119–24.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.22940.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Feldman T. Percutaneous suture closure for management of large French size arterial and venous puncture. J Interv Cardiol. 2000;13:237–41.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8183.2000.tb00298.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Haas PC, Krajcer Z, Diethrich EB. Closure of large percutaneous access sites using the Prostar XL percutaneous vascular surgery device. J Endovasc Surg. 1999;6:168–70.  https://doi.org/10.1177/152660289900600209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Howell M, Villareal R, Krajcer Z. Percutaneous access and closure of femoral artery access sites associated with endoluminal repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Endovasc Ther. 2001;8:68–74.  https://doi.org/10.1177/152660280100800112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Lee WA, Brown MP, Nelson PR, et al. Midterm outcomes of femoral arteries after percutaneous endovascular aortic repair using the Preclose technique. J Vasc Surg. 2008;47:919–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2007.12.029.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Marchant D, Schwartz R, Chepurko L, Katz S. Access site management after aortic valvuloplasty using a suture mediated closure device: clinical experience in 4 cases. J Invasive Cardiol. 2000;12:474–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Michaels AD, Ports TA. Use of a percutaneous arterial suture device (Perclose) in patients undergoing percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2001;53:445–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Mylonas I, Sakata Y, Salinger M, et al. The use of percutaneous suture-mediated closure for the management of 14 French femoral venous access. J Invasive Cardiol. 2006;18:299–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Solomon LW, Fusman B, Jolly N, et al. Percutaneous suture closure for management of large French size arterial puncture in aortic valvuloplasty. J Invasive Cardiol. 2001;13:592–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Teh LG, Sieunarine K, van Schie G, et al. Use of the percutaneous vascular surgery device for closure of femoral access sites during endovascular aneurysm repair: lessons from our experience. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2001;22:418–23.  https://doi.org/10.1053/ejvs.2001.1495.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Traul DK, Clair DG, Gray B, et al. Percutaneous endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms: a feasibility study. J Vasc Surg. 2000;32:770–6.  https://doi.org/10.1067/mva.2000.107987.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Morasch MD, Kibbe MR, Evans ME, et al. Percutaneous repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2004;40:12–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2004.03.019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Torsello GB, Kasprzak B, Klenk E, et al. Endovascular suture versus cutdown for endovascular aneurysm repair: a prospective randomized pilot study. J Vasc Surg. 2003;38:78–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Bhatt DL, Raymond RE, Feldman T, et al. Successful “pre-closure” of 7Fr and 8Fr femoral arteriotomies with a 6Fr suture-based device (the Multicenter Interventional Closer Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2002;89:777–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Nasu K, Tsuchikane E, Sumitsuji S, et al. The safety and efficacy of “pre-closure” utilizing the Closer suture-mediated vascular closure device for achievement of hemostasis in patients following coronary interventions: results of the second Perclose Accelerated Ambulation and Discharge (PARADISE II) Trial. J Invasive Cardiol. 2005;17:30–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Lee WA, Brown MP, Nelson PR, Huber TS. Total percutaneous access for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (“Preclose” technique). J Vasc Surg. 2007;45:1095–101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2007.01.050.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Izquierdo L, Criado E, Leiva L, et al. Triple-wire: a variation of the “Preclose” technique. Ann Vasc Surg. 2009;23:713–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2009.05.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Kahlert P, Eggebrecht H, Erbel R, Sack S. A modified “preclosure” technique after percutaneous aortic valve replacement. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;72:877–84.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.21711.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Bowers BS, Head S, Brown D. Temporary aortic occlusion to facilitate large-bore arterial closure. J Invasive Cardiol. 2010;22:503–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Sharp ASP, Michev I, Maisano F, et al. A new technique for vascular access management in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;75:784–93.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.22238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Bui QT, Kolansky DM, Bannan A, Herrmann HC. “Double wire” Angio-Seal closure technique after balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;75:488–92.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.22295.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Fallahi A, Kim M. Initial experience of removal of 10-French sheaths using the 8-French Angio-Seal vascular closure device. J Invasive Cardiol. 2010;22:130–1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Korngold EC, Inglessis I, Garasic JM. A novel technique for 14 French arteriotomy closure after percutaneous aortic valvuloplasty using two Mynx closure devices. J Interv Cardiol. 2009;22:179–83.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8183.2008.00402.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Nakamura M, Chakravarty T, Jilaihawi H, et al. Complete percutaneous approach for arterial access in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a comparison with surgical cut-down and closure. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;84:293–300.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.25130.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Kadakia MB, Herrmann HC, Desai ND, et al. Factors associated with vascular complications in patients undergoing balloon-expandable transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement via open versus percutaneous approaches. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:570–6.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.113.001030.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Holper EM, Kim RJ, Mack M, et al. Randomized trial of surgical cutdown versus percutaneous access in transfemoral TAVR. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;83:457–64.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.25002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    McCabe JM, Huang P-H, Cohen DJ, et al. Surgical versus percutaneous femoral access for delivery of large-bore cardiovascular devices (from the PARTNER trial). Am J Cardiol. 2016;117:1643–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.02.041.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Majunke N, Mangner N, Linke A, et al. Comparison of percutaneous closure versus surgical femoral cutdown for decannulation of large-sized arterial and venous access sites in adults after successful weaning of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Invasive Cardiol. 2016;28:415–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Seeger J, Gonska B, Rodewald C, et al. Impact of suture mediated femoral access site closure with the Prostar XL compared to the ProGlide system on outcome in transfemoral aortic valve implantation. Int J Cardiol. 2016;223:564–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.08.193.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Kodama A, Yamamoto M, Shimura T, et al. Comparative data of single versus double ProGlide vascular preclose technique after percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation from the Optimized Catheter Valvular Intervention (OCEAN-TAVI) Japanese multicenter registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.26686.
  141. 141.
    van Gils L, Daemen J, Walters G, et al. MANTA, a novel plug-based vascular closure device for large bore arteriotomies: technical report. EuroIntervention. 2016;12:896–900.  https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJV12I7A147.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Katzenschlager R, Tischler R, Kalchhauser G, et al. Angio-Seal use in patients with peripheral arterial disease (ASPIRE). Angiology. 2009;60:536–8.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0003319708330007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Rashid MN, Ahmed B, Straight F, et al. Extravascular closure for patients with high-risk femoral anatomy. J Invasive Cardiol. 2008;20:328–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Gray BH, Miller R, Langan EM, et al. The utility of the StarClose arterial closure device in patients with peripheral arterial disease. Ann Vasc Surg. 2009;23:341–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2008.07.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Dehghani P, Mohammad A, Marcuzzi D, et al. Efficacy and long-term safety of StarClose™ for hemostasis of arterial puncture sites distal to common femoral artery bifurcation after percutaneous coronary interventions. J Invasive Cardiol. 2010;22:505–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Bangalore S, Vidi VD, Liu CB, et al. Efficacy and safety of the nitinol clip-based vascular closure device (StarClose) for closure of common femoral arterial cannulation at or near the bifurcation: a propensity score-adjusted analysis. J Invasive Cardiol. 2011;23:194–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Ellis SG, Bhatt D, Kapadia S, et al. Correlates and outcomes of retroperitoneal hemorrhage complicating percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;67:541–5.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.20671.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Kulick DL, Rediker DE. Use of the Perclose device in the brachial artery after coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 1999;46:111–2.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-726X(199901)46:1<111::AID-CCD27>3.0.CO;2-C.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Gliech V, Dübel HP, Rutsch W. Suture closure of the brachial artery access site post-coronary catheterization. J Invasive Cardiol. 2001;13:12–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Kim A, Fusman B, Jolly N, Feldman T. Percutaneous suture closure for brachial artery puncture. J Interv Cardiol. 2002;15:277–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Bilecen D, Bongartz G, Ostheim-Dzerowycz W. Off-label use of Angio-Seal vascular closure device for brachial artery puncture closure-deployment modification and initial results after transbrachial PTA. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2006;31:431–3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2005.05.030.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Belenky A, Aranovich D, Greif F, et al. Use of a collagen-based device for closure of low brachial artery punctures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2007;30:273–5.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-006-0061-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Lupattelli T, Clerissi J, Clerici G, et al. The efficacy and safety of closure of brachial access using the AngioSeal closure device: experience with 161 interventions in diabetic patients with critical limb ischemia. J Vasc Surg. 2008;47:782–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2007.11.050.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Puggioni A, Boesmans E, Deloose K, et al. Use of StarClose for brachial artery closure after percutaneous endovascular interventions. Vascular. 2008;16:85–90.  https://doi.org/10.2310/6670.2008.00015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Cirillo P, Petrillo G, D'Ascoli GL, et al. Successful use of the Cardiva Boomerang™ vascular closure device to close a brachial artery puncture site after emergency PTCA. Heart Vessel. 2010;25:565–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00380-010-0003-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Henry M, Amor M, Allaoui M, Tricoche O. A new access site management tool: the Angio-Seal hemostatic puncture closure device. J Endovasc Surg. 1995;2:289–96.  https://doi.org/10.1583/1074-6218(1995)002<0289:ANASMT>2.0.CO;2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Hoffmann K, Schott U, Erb M, et al. Remote suturing for percutaneous closure of popliteal artery access. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn. 1998;43:477–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Noory E, Rastan A, Sixt S, et al. Arterial puncture closure using a clip device after transpopliteal retrograde approach for recanalization of the superficial femoral artery. J Endovasc Ther. 2008;15:310–4.  https://doi.org/10.1583/07-2324.1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Sakata Y, Syed Z, Salinger MH, Feldman T. Percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty: antegrade transseptal vs. conventional retrograde transarterial approach. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2005;64:314–21.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.20300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Shaw JA, Dewire E, Nugent A, Eisenhauer AC. Use of suture-mediated vascular closure devices for the management of femoral vein access after transcatheter procedures. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2004;63:439–43.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.20190.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Mahadevan VS, Jimeno S, Benson LN, et al. Pre-closure of femoral venous access sites used for large-sized sheath insertion with the Perclose device in adults undergoing cardiac intervention. Heart. 2008;94:571–2.  https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2006.095935.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Coto HA. Closure of the femoral vein puncture site after transcatheter procedures using Angio-Seal. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2002;55:16–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Srivatsa SS, Srivatsa A, Spangler TA. Mynx vascular closure device achieves reliable closure and hemostasis of percutaneous transfemoral venous access in a porcine vascular model. J Invasive Cardiol. 2015;27:121–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Bovenschulte H, Chang DH, Michels G, et al. Technical note: misplaced 13F-dialysis catheter in the subclavian artery—controlled removal with an undersized 8F-collagen closure system (AngioSeal®) and endovascular balloon fixation [in German]. RöFo. 2011;183:758–60.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1273448.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    Chemelli AP, Wiedermann F, Klocker J, et al. Endovascular management of inadvertent subclavian artery catheterization during subclavian vein cannulation. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21:470–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2009.12.392.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Devriendt A, Tran-Ngoc E, Gottignies P, et al. Ease of using a dedicated percutaneous closure device after inadvertent cannulation of the subclavian artery: case report. Case Rep Med. 2009;2009:728629–3.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/728629.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Dowling K, Herr A, Siskin G, et al. Use of a collagen plug device to seal a subclavian artery puncture secondary to intraarterial dialysis catheter placement. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1999;10:33–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Kirkwood ML, Wahlgren C-M, Desai TR. The use of arterial closure devices for incidental arterial injury. Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2008;42:471–6.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1538574408320173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Micha JP, Goldstein BH, Lindsay SF, et al. Subclavian artery puncture repair with Angio-Seal deployment. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;104:761–3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.10.025.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Nicholson T, Ettles D, Robinson G. Managing inadvertent arterial catheterization during central venous access procedures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2004;27:21–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Railo M, Roth W-D. The use of a collagen-based puncture closure device in the subclavian artery after inadvertent introduction of an 11.5 French hemodialysis catheter. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2004;27:681–2.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-004-0215-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Shetty SV, Kwolek CJ, Garasic JM. Percutaneous closure after inadvertent subclavian artery cannulation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;69:1050–2.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.21143.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Berlet MH, Steffen D, Shaughness G, Hanner J. Closure using a surgical closure device of inadvertent subclavian artery punctures during central venous catheter placement. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2001;24:122–4.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002700002542.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  174. 174.
    Fraizer MC, Chu WW, Gudjonsson T, Wolff MR. Use of a percutaneous vascular suture device for closure of an inadvertent subclavian artery puncture. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003;59:369–71.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.10545.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Meyhoefer J, Lehmann H, Minden H-H, Butter C. Closure of the subclavian artery puncture site with a percutaneous suture device after removal of an arterial pacemaker lead. Europace. 2006;8:1070–2.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eul129.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Wallace MJ, Ahrar K. Percutaneous closure of a subclavian artery injury after inadvertent catheterization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12:1227–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    Powers CJ, Zomorodi AR, Britz GW, et al. Endovascular management of inadvertent brachiocephalic arterial catheterization. J Neurosurg. 2011;114:146–52.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.10.JNS09940.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    Tran V, Shiferson A, Hingorani AP, et al. Use of the StarClose device for closure of inadvertent subclavian artery punctures. Ann Vasc Surg. 2009;23(5):688.e11–3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2009.06.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Yap FY, Alaraj AM, Gaba RC. Inadvertent subclavian arteriotomy closure using the Mynx vascular closure device. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23:1253–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2012.06.024.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  180. 180.
    Blanc R, Mounayer C, Piotin M, et al. Hemostatic closure device after carotid puncture for stent and coil placement in an intracranial aneurysm: technical note. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002;23:978–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Hatfield MK, Zaleski GX, Kozlov D, et al. Angio-Seal device used for hemostasis in the descending aorta. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:612–4.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.183.3.1830612.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pei-Hsiu Huang
    • 1
  • Ayman Khairy M. Hassan
    • 2
  • Frederic S. Resnic
    • 3
  1. 1.Sutter Heart & Vascular InstituteSacramentoUSA
  2. 2.Cardiology DepartmentAssuit University HospitalsAssuitEgypt
  3. 3.Department of Cardiovascular MedicineLahey Hospital and Medical CenterBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations