A Stopped Pilot Study of the ProGlide Closure Device After Transbrachial Endovascular Interventions
Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the suture-mediated ProGlide device in closure of the brachial artery after endovascular interventions. Materials and Methods: From 2016 to 2017, a pilot study was performed using the ProGlide to achieve hemostasis after percutaneous access of dista...
Saved in:
Published in | Journal of endovascular therapy Vol. 26; no. 5; pp. 727 - 731 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Los Angeles, CA
SAGE Publications
01.10.2019
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 1526-6028 1545-1550 |
DOI | 10.1177/1526602819862775 |
Cover
Summary: | Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the suture-mediated ProGlide device in closure of the brachial artery after endovascular interventions. Materials and Methods: From 2016 to 2017, a pilot study was performed using the ProGlide to achieve hemostasis after percutaneous access of distal brachial arteries >4 mm in diameter. In an interim analysis, the results were compared to a matched control group taken from a 60-patient historical cohort who underwent brachial artery access and manual compression to achieve hemostasis between 2014 and 2017. The primary outcome was access-related reintervention and the secondary outcome was the incidence of access-site complications. Results: Seven patients (mean age 67.9 years; 6 men) were enrolled in the study before it was stopped in 2017. Four patients experienced 6 access-site complications (neuropathy, hematoma, occlusion, and pseudoaneurysm). These resulted in 3 access-related reinterventions: surgical evacuation of a hematoma, thrombectomy of the occluded brachial artery, and surgical repair of the pseudoaneurysm. In the interim comparison to the 19 matched patients (mean age 61.9 years; 6 men), the ProGlide group had proportionally more patients experiencing access-related complications (57% vs 16% for manual compression, p=0.035) and resultant reinterventions (43% vs 11%, p=0.064). Based on this data the trial was stopped. Conclusion: Considering this experience, it is not advisable to use the ProGlide in transbrachial endovascular interventions due to the high incidence of complications and access-related reinterventions. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1526-6028 1545-1550 |
DOI: | 10.1177/1526602819862775 |