Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2013; 23(02): 134-138
DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.116566
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Initial experience with Angioseal™ : Safety and efficacy of the endovascular closure device

Sachin Modi
Department of Interventional Radiology, Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, West Midlands
,
Rakesh Gadvi
Department of Interventional Radiology, Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, West Midlands
,
Suresh Babu
Department of Interventional Radiology, Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, West Midlands
› Author Affiliations Source of Support: Nill.
› Further Information
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background: Vascular access site management is crucial to safe, efficient, and comfortable diagnostic or interventional percutaneous procedures. The Angioseal™ vascular closure device has been shown to be safe and effective in reducing the time to hemostasis following angiographic or interventional procedures. Relatively few studies have been conducted in the UK to assess the safety and efficacy of the device in a local setting. Materials and Methods: Data were retrospectively reviewed on 147 patients who underwent either diagnostic angiography or percutaneous interventional procedures from January 2008 to October 2009, and who had the femoral access site closed by 6F VIP Angioseal. A total of 147 patients (F: 49, M: 98), including 80 right femoral punctures, 57 left femoral punctures, and 10 bilateral punctures were reviewed using radiological reports and patients′ clinical data. Data on antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy were recorded. All procedures were carried out by two interventional radiologists at a single institution, under similar operating conditions. Results: There were a total of six complications (4.47%), of which one was a major complication (0.75%), i.e., retroperitoneal bleed. There were five minor complications (3.73%), which included device deployment failure (2), device malfunction (2), and a superficial hematoma (>6 cm). Total complications were 6 out of 157 (3.8%) [95% CI = 0.8-6.8%)]. Successful hemostasis was achieved in less than 5 min in over 97% of patients. Successful device deployment was seen in over 98% of cases. Conclusion: We conclude that in our experience, the Angioseal vascular closure device is a safe and efficient means of achieving hemostasis post antegrade or retrograde puncture for diagnostic and percutaneous intervention procedures.

Keywords

Angiography - Angioseal™ - endovascular intervention - vascular access site closure


Publication History

Article published online:
04 October 2021

© 2013. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Duffin DC, Muhlestein JB, Allisson SB, Horne BD, Fowles RE, Sorensen SG, 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.
  • 2 Resin FS, Aurora N, Mathieu M, Reynolds MR. A cost minimisation analysis of the Angioseal vascular closure device following percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2007;99:766-70.
  • 3 Heintzen MP, Stauer BE. Peripheral arterial complications after heart catheterisation. Herz 1998;23:4-20.
  • 4 Kussmaul WG 3 rd , Buchbinder M, Whitlow PL, Aker UT, Heuser RR, King SB, et al. Rapid arterial haemostasis and decreased access site complications after cardiac catheterisation and angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;25:1685-92.
  • 5 Sesana M, Vaghetti M, Albiero R, Corvaja N, Martini G, Sivieri G, et al. Effectiveness and Complications of Vascular Access Closure Devices After Interventional Procedures. J Invasive Cardiol 2000;12:395-9.
  • 6 Patel RP, Jneid H, Derdeyn CP, Klein LW, Levine GN, Lookstein RA, et al. Arteriotomy closure devices for cardiovascular procedures. Circulation 2010;122:1882-93.
  • 7 Looby S, Keeling AN, McErlean A, Given MF, Geoghegan T, Lee MJ. Efficacy and safety of the Angioseal vascular closure device post antegrade puncture. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2008;31:558-62.
  • 8 Yakubov SJ, Kahn JK, Bergman GW, Mewissen MW. Device reliability and safety using the Angioseal STS vascular closure device in interventional patients. Am J Cardiol 2001;88:32G
  • 9 Eggebrecht H, Haude M, Woertgen U, Schmermund A, von Birgelen C, Naber C, et al. Systematic use of a collagen-based vascular closure device immediately after cardiac catheterisation procedures in 1317 consecutive patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Intervent 2002;57:486-95.
  • 10 Schnyder G, Sawhney N, Whisenant B, Tsimikas S, Turi ZG. Common femoral artery anatomy is influenced by demographics and comorbidity: Implications for cardiac and peripheral invasive studies. Catheter Cardiovasc. Intervent 2001;55:289-95.
  • 11 Grier D, Hartnell G. Percutaneous femoral artery puncture: Practice and anatomy. Br J Radiol 1990;63:602-4.
  • 12 O′Sullivan GJ, Buckenham TM, Belli AM. The use of the Angioseal haemostatic puncture closure device in high risk patients. Clin Radiol 1998;54:51-5.
  • 13 Kensey KR. Puncture site haemostasis. J Invasive Cardiol 1994;6:273-6.
  • 14 St. Jude Medical, Angio-seal, Evolution are trademarks of St. Jude Medical, Inc. Or its related companies. Reprinted with permission of St. Jude Medical™, ©2013. All rights reserved.
  • 15 Chevalier B, Lancelin B, Koning R, Henry M, Gommeaux A, Pilliere R, et al. Effect of a closure device on complication rates in high-local-risk-patients: Results of a randomised multicenter trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2003;58:285-91.
  • 16 Park Y, Roh HG, Choo SW, Lee SH, Shin SW, Do YS, et al. Prospective comparison of collagen plug (Angioseal) and suture mediated (Closure S) closure devices at the femoral access sites. Korean J Radiol 2005;6:248-55.
  • 17 Moran T. Increased throughput, staff efficiencies and patient comfort with the use of the Angioseal device. Cath Lab Digest 2001. Current Innovations in Vascular Sealing Supp: 16-18.
  • 18 Lowrie M. Closing femoral artery punctures: A new approach. Cath Lab Digest 1995;3:6.
  • 19 Yee KM, Lazzam C, Richards J, Ross J, Seidelin PH. Same day discharge after coronary stenting: A faesability study using a haemostatic femoral puncture closure device. J Interv Cardiol 2004;17:315-20.
  • 20 Upponi SS, Ganeshan AG, Warakaulle DR, Phillips-Hughes J, Boardman P, Uberoi R. Angioseal versus manual compression for haemostasis following peripheral vascular diagnostic and interventional procedures: A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Radiol 2007;61:332-4.
  • 21 Sumter D, Sivadon A, Lorenz L. The path of least resistance: How Angioseal helped one lab find the road to better economic performance. Cath Lab Digest 2004;12:3.
  • 22 Popma JJ, Satler LF, Pichard AD, Kent KM, Campbell A, Chuang YC, et al. Vascular complications after balloon and new device angioplasty. Circulation 1993;88:1569-78.
  • 23 Sibler S. Haemostasis success rates and local complications using collagen after femoral access for cardiac catheterisation. Am J Heart 1998;135:152-6.
  • 24 Ratnam LA, Raja J, Munneke GJ, Morgan RA, Belli AM. Prospective non randomised trial of manual compression and Angioseal Starclose arterial closure devices in common femoral punctures. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 2007;30:182-8.