Perkutane Verschlusssysteme in der vaskulären Interventionsradiologie

Zusammenfassung

Das Management der Punktionsstelle nach arterieller Gefäßintervention ist nach wie vor eine Herausforderung, denn nicht selten verlängert sich der Eingriff durch den Verschluss des Zugangswegs erheblich. Die manuelle Kompression der Punktionsstelle in der Leiste mit Anlage eines Druckverbands, gefolgt von einer Phase der Immobilisation des Patienten, ist vielerorts Goldstandard. Die Anwendung eines vaskulären Gefäßverschlusssystems (GVS) verbessert die Sicherheit des perkutanen Gefäßzugangs, vereinfacht die Nachsorge und bedeutet einen höheren Patientenkomfort mit verkürzter Immobilisationsphase. Allerdings ist ein GVS auch mit zusätzlichen Kosten verbunden. Dieser Artikel gibt eine Übersicht über GVS und beschreibt deren Vor- und Nachteile sowie spezifische Komplikationsmöglichkeiten.

Abstract

Management of puncture site after arterial vascular interventional procedures often remains a challenge, while this step may prolong the entire procedure dramatically. Manual compression of the puncture site at groin level with compressing bandage is still a widespread golden standard. Using a vascular closure devices increases safety of percutaneous access management, makes follow-up easier and enhances patient comfort by reducing the time of immobilization. However, using a vascular closure device causes additional costs. This article gives an overview on vascular closure devices and describes their pros and cons as well as device related complications.

Keywords

Interventional radiology - closure device - puncture site

• Literatur

• 1 Prayck JB, Wall TC, Longabaugh P et al. A randomized trial of vascular hemostasis techniques to reduce femoral vascular complications after coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 1998; 81: 970-976
• 2 Turi ZG. An evidence-based approach to femoral arterial access and closure. Rev Cardiovasc Med 2008; 9: 7-18
• 3 Ammann P, Brunner-La RoccaHP, Angehrn W et al. Procedural complications following diagnostic coronary angiography are related to the operator’s experience and the catheter size. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2003; 59: 13-18
• 4 SEAL Trial Study Team. Assessment of the safety and efficacy of the DUETT vascular hemostasis device: final results of the Safe and Effective Vascular Hemostasis (SEAL) trial. Am Heart J 2002; 143: 612-619
• 5 Hoffer EK, Bloch RD. Percutaneous Arterial Closure Devices. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003; 14: 865-885
• 6 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
• 7 Lardi AB, McKeever LS Wang MH 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: 143-147
• 8 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: 1200-1209
• 9 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
• 10 Haulon S, Hassen Khodja R, Proudfoot CW et al. A systematic literature review of the efficacy and safety of the Prostar XL device for the closure of large femoral arterial access sites in patients undergoing percutaneous endovascular aortic procedures. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011; 41: 201-213
• 11 Haas PC, Kracjer Z, Dietrich EB. Closure of large percutaneous accesssites using the Prostar XL percutaneous vascular surgery device. J Endovasc Surg 1999; 6: 168-170
• 12 Torsello G et al. Endovascular suture versus cutdown for endovascular aneurysm repair: a prospective randomized pilot study. J Vasc Surg 2003; 38: 78-82
• 13 Lee AW, Brown MP, Nelson PR et al. Total percutaneous access for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (“Preclose” technique). J Vasc Surg 2007; 45: 1095-1101
• 14 Jahnke T, Schäfer JP, Charalambous N et al. Total percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair with the dual 6-F Perclose-AT preclosing technique: a case-control study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009; 20: 1292-1298
• 15 Chiu Wong S, Bachinsky W, Cambier P et al. for the ECLIPSE Trial Investigators 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) . J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2009; 2: 785-793
• 16 Bui QT, Kolansky DM, Bannan A et al. “Double wire” Angio-Seal closure technique after balloon aorticvalvuloplasty. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 75: 488-492
• 17 Vaitkus PT. A meta-analysis of percutaneous vascular closure devices after diagnostic catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention. J Invasive Cardiol 2004; 16: 243-246
• 18 Reekers JA, Müller-Hülsbeck S, Libicher M et al. CIRSE vascular closure device registry. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2011; 34: 50-53 Epub 2010 Oct 28
• 19 RISE. A Clinical Evaluation of the StarClose™ Vascular Closure System, ClinicalTrials. gov identifier: NCT00736086
• 20 Spiliopoulos S, Katsanos K, Karnabatidis D et al. Safety and Efficacy of the StarClose Vascular Closure Device in More Than 1000 Consecutive Peripheral Angioplasty Procedures. J Endovasc Ther 2011; 18: 435-443
• 21 Chiu AH, Coles SR, Tibballs J et al. The StarClose vascular closure device in antegrade and retrograde punctures: a single-center experience. J Endovasc Ther 2010; 17: 46-50
• 22 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: 475-482
• 23 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: 203-208
• 24 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
• 25 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
• 26 Schwarz T, Rastan A, Pochert V et al. Mechanical compression versus haemostatic wound dressing after femoral artery sheath removal: a prospective, randomized study. Vasa 2009; 38: 53-59
• 27 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: 1058-1063
• 28 Juergens CP, Leung DY, 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: 166-170