0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review |

Arterial Puncture Closing Devices Compared With Standard Manual Compression After Cardiac Catheterization:  Systematic Review and Meta-analysis FREE

Maria Koreny, MD; Eva Riedmüller, MD; Mariam Nikfardjam, MD; Peter Siostrzonek, MD; Marcus Müllner, MD, MSc
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Emergency Medicine (Drs Koreny, Riedmüller, and Müllner) and Internal Medicine 2, Division of Cardiology (Dr Nikfardjam), University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria; and Department of Internal Medicine, K. H. Barmherzige Schwestern, Linz, Austria (Dr Siostrzonek).


JAMA. 2004;291(3):350-357. doi:10.1001/jama.291.3.350.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Context Arterial puncture closing devices (APCDs) were developed to replace standard compression at the puncture site and to shorten bed rest following percutaneous coronary intervention.

Objective To assess the safety and efficacy of APCDs (Angioseal, Vasoseal, Duett, Perclose, Techstar, Prostar) compared with standard manual compression in patients undergoing coronary angiography or percutaneous vascular interventions.

Data Sources A systematic literature search of MEDLINE (1966-January 2003), EMBASE (1989-January 2003), PASCAL (1996-January 2003), BIOSIS (1990-January 2003), and CINHAL (1982-January 2003) databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant articles in any language.

Study Selection Included randomized controlled trials reporting vascular complications at the puncture site (hematoma, bleeding, arteriovenous fistula, pseudoaneurysm) and efficacy (time to hemostasis, time to ambulation, time to discharge from hospital).

Data Extraction Two reviewers abstracted the data independently and in duplicate. Disagreements were resolved by discussion among at least 3 reviewers. The most important criteria were adequacy of allocation concealment, whether the analysis was according to the intention-to-treat principle, and if person assessing the outcome was blinded to intervention group. Random-effects models were used to pool the data.

Data Synthesis Thirty trials met the selection criteria and included up to 4000 patients. When comparing any APCD with standard compression, the relative risk (RR) of groin hematoma was 1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-1.51; P = .35); bleeding, 1.48 (95% CI, 0.88-2.48; P = .14); developing an arteriovenous fistula, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.23-2.94; P = .77); and developing a pseudoaneurysm at the puncture site, 1.19 (95% CI, 0.75-1.88; P = .46). Time to hemostasis was shorter in the group with APCD compared with standard compression (mean difference, 17 minutes; range, 14-19 minutes), but there was a high degree of heterogeneity among studies. Only 2 studies explicitly reported allocation concealment, blinded outcome assessment, and intention-to-treat analysis. When limiting analyses to only trials that used explicit intention-to-treat approaches, APCDs were associated with a higher risk of hematoma (RR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.13-3.15) and a higher risk of pseudoaneurysm (RR, 5.40; 95% CI, 1.21-24.5).

Conclusions Based on this meta-analysis of 30 randomized trials, many of poor methodological quality, there is only marginal evidence that APCDs are effective and there is reason for concern that these devices may increase the risk of hematoma and pseudoaneurysm.

Figures in this Article

The number of annual coronary interventions exceeds 500 000 in the United States1,2 and is estimated to exceed 1 million worldwide.1,3 Along with major complications, such as coronary artery dissection, thrombus formation, and coronary artery spasm leading to acute occlusion of a coronary vessel, there are additional complications related to the site of peripheral arterial access, including hematoma, bleeding, arteriovenous fistula, and pseudoaneurysm. The reported overall vascular complication rates range from 1.5% to 9%,48 and 20% to 40% of patients who experience such complications require surgical repair.7,8

After removal of the catheter sheath, hemostasis is usually achieved by manual compression at the vascular access site with or without the use of adjunctive mechanical compression devices. Thereafter, prolonged bed rest is often recommended. Bed rest and compression are associated with discomfort to the patient and may have cost implications. Arterial puncture closing devices (APCDs) have been developed to avoid manual compression and shorten bed rest.

Various techniques to replace manual compression have been designed: collagen plugs with or without an anchor from inside the artery (Angioseal,920 Vasoseal2130); balloon-positioning catheters combined with bovine microfibrillar collagen and thrombin (Duett31,32); a suturelike stitch placed around the femoral artery (Perclose15,3338 [including Techstar and Prostar]). We estimate that APCDs are now being used in 50% of patients undergoing a percutaneous coronary intervention.

We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess the safety and efficacy of APCDs compared with manual compression in patients after coronary angiography or percutaneous vascular interventions.

We searched MEDLINE (1966-January 2003), EMBASE (1989-January 2003), PASCAL (1996-January 2003), BIOSIS (1990-January 2003), and CINHAL (1982-January 2003) databases, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We searched for terms describing the intervention with and without a filter to identify randomized controlled trials. The detailed search terms can be provided by the authors on request. We also contacted companies distributing such devices (Euromed, Intramed, St Jude, and Crosstec; all located in Vienna, Austria) and asked whether they were aware of any published or unpublished trials on APCDs. We also sent the results of our search to specialists in the field and asked if they were aware of any published or unpublished trials not identified by our search. We also searched references of all included articles for potentially relevant trials. We did not apply language restrictions.

We included randomized trials that compared APCDs with exclusive manual compression or standard manual compression of the femoral artery. Standard manual compression was defined as compression with the facultative use of adjunctive mechanical compression devices. Mechanical devices use a stand with a compression disk (eg, C-clamp) or a compression arch with a pneumatic dome (Femostop). For reasons of simplicity, we will refer to both manual compression and standard manual compression as standard compression.

We included all articles irrespective of publication length; that is we did not exclude articles published as abstracts or short reports, even though critical appraisal of such publications is limited.

Primarily we were interested in safety data. Before extracting data, we prospectively defined the incidence of the following vascular complications: hematoma at the puncture site; bleeding at the puncture site; formation of an arteriovenous fistula at the puncture site; and formation of a pseudoaneurysm at the puncture site. Further, we extracted other end points as reported by the authors (such as surgical intervention at the puncture site, receiving a blood transfusion, leg ischemia). For each end point, we used the definition given by the study authors.

Efficacy data (time to hemostasis, time to ambulation [ie, duration of bed rest], and time to discharge from the hospital) were also defined in advance.

Two reviewers abstracted the data independently and in duplicate to a predefined form. The results were compared and disagreements were resolved by discussion among at least 3 reviewers. We recorded whether the trial was reported according to the CONSORT criteria.39 We considered the most important criteria to be adequacy of allocation concealment (yes vs unclear or no), whether the analysis was according to the intention-to-treat principle (explicitly reported vs not), and if the person assessing the outcome was blinded to the intervention group.40 We calculated a simple score, ranging from zero (none of the 3 quality items fulfilled) to 3 (all items fulfilled). This score provides an assessment of study quality but was not used for sensitivity analysis.

The safety end points were binary and we calculated risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each trial. When no outcomes occurred in 1 or both groups, 0.5 was added to each cell of the respective contingency table. When trials reported ordinal categories (eg, increasing hematoma size), we collapsed the categories to avoid overdispersion. The efficacy end points were continuous. We excluded trials with continuous end points from the analysis when the SD, SE, or 95% CIs were not reported, or when the point estimate was reported as a median only. We used random-effects models to combine the risk ratios and continuous outcomes. The effect was combined over all devices. We used STATA statistical software (Release 8, STATA Corp, College Station, Tex) for all analyses.

We used random-effects meta-regression models to assess whether predefined clinical variables influence effect size. The following variables were selected: manual compression control group vs standard manual compression control group; type of device; and diagnostic angiography vs percutaneous coronary intervention. Furthermore, we assessed the impact of study quality on the effect size: allocation concealment (reported vs not reported); blinded outcome assessment (reported vs not reported); and intention-to-treat analysis (reported vs not reported).

We computed the Cochrane Q by summing the squared deviations of each study's estimate from the overall meta-analytic estimate, weighting each study's contribution in the same manner as in the meta-analysis. We used the Q together with the resulting degrees of freedom (df) to calculate the proportion of variation due to heterogeneity (I2)[ = (Q − df)/Q].41 I2 quantifies the degree of heterogeneity. The advantage is that it may be calculated and compared across meta-analyses of different sizes, different types of study, and using different types of outcome data. Funnel plots were drawn to assess visually whether there was evidence of publication bias. We also used a regression method to quantify publication bias or heterogeneity.42

The electronic search resulted in 1797 hits. We considered 117 articles to be potentially eligible and retrieved the full-text versions (Figure 1). We contacted specialists in the field and manufacturers of the APCDs and found another 8 articles. Seven potentially eligible articles were identified by screening the references of the articles selected. Our search was intended to be highly sensitive at the cost of specificity. We scrutinized these articles (n = 132) more closely and excluded another 102 for the following reasons: duplicates (n = 23), different study aim (n = 8), not containing original data (n = 1), not a randomized controlled trial (n = 52), and not comparing APCDs with standard compression (n = 18). We finally included 30 studies in which APCDs were compared with standard compression. Several were primarily published as abstracts and later as full articles in peer-reviewed journals; in these cases we used the full article version. Some authors published several studies on the same topic. If an overlap of data was suspected, authors were contacted and asked for clarification. When authors did not reply, the most recent and most detailed publication was included. After excluding duplicates (n = 20), 56 articles were potentially eligible for analysis. We finally included 30 studies in which APCDs were compared with standard compression (Table 1 and Figure 1).

Study Quality

Generally, trial quality was fair (Table 1). Six studies12,16,26,31,33,35 reported allocation concealment. Four studies14,26,29,31 explicitly reported an intention-to-treat analysis (in another 15 studies such an analysis was possible). Three studies23,26,31 explicitly reported blinded outcome assessment. There were only 2 studies26,31 in which allocation concealment, intention-to-treat analysis, and blinded outcome assessment were reported.

Safety

Hematoma. Nineteen publications9,1114,16,2226,28,29,3338 with 21 comparison groups assessed the risk of hematoma at the puncture site. The definition of hematoma varied between studies: some authors simply mention the presence or absence of hematoma, others use various sizes for grading. If authors reported 2 or more categories of increasing hematoma size, the groups were collapsed. When comparing any APCD with standard compression, the relative risk (RR) of groin hematoma was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.86-1.51) (P = . 35) (Figure 2). The proportion of variation due to heterogeneity (I2) was moderately large (33%). The funnel plot showed no evidence of overt publication bias or heterogeneity (mean bias, 0.01; 95% CI, −1.07 to 1.09).

Figure 2. Groin Hematoma and Bleeding
Graphic Jump Location
CI indicates confidence interval; RR, relative risk. Murray et al13 provided 2 comparisons using 2 different forms of collagen. Sanborn et al29 provided 2 comparisons because data were presented for 2 strata: one when diagnostic angiography was performed and another when coronary angioplasty was performed. The size of the point estimates is defined by study weight. The weight is a function of the number of events, the total number of participants, and the random-effects method used to combine the trials.

Local Bleeding. The RR of groin bleeding was 1.48 (95% CI, 0.88-2.48) in the group with APCDs compared with standard compression (P = .14) (Figure 2).1014,16,18,24,27,2931 The proportion of variation due to heterogeneity was 38%. In the funnel plot there was no overt evidence of publication bias but rather heterogeneity (mean bias, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.02-2.46). This was caused by a single trial in which bleeding was assessed in a meticulous way.16

Arteriovenous Fistula. The RR of arteriovenous fistula formation at the puncture site was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.23-2.94) in the group with APCDs compared with standard compression (Figure 3) (P = .77).24,26,27,3335 The proportion of variation due to heterogeneity was 0%. The mean bias was −0.14 (95% CI, −1.34 to 1.06).

Figure 3. Arteriovenous Fistula and Psuedoaneurysm
Graphic Jump Location
CI indicates confidence interval; RR, relative risk. Sanborn et al29 provided 2 comparisons because data were presented for 2 strata: one when diagnostic angiography was performed and another when coronary angioplasty was performed. The size of the point estimates is defined by study weight. The weight is a function of the number of events, the total number of participants, and the random-effects method used to combine the trials.

Pseudoaneurysm. The RR of developing a pseudoaneurysm at the puncture site was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.75-1.88) in the group with APCDs compared with standard compression (Figure 3) (P = .46).9,11,12,14,2327,29,30,3336,38 The proportion of variation due to heterogeneity was zero. There was no evidence of overt publication bias or heterogeneity (mean bias, 0.21; 95% CI, −0.59 to 0.90).

Other End Points. We assessed several other end points that were reported by authors, but that we did not define a priori. The RR of a surgical intervention at the puncture site was 1.61 (95% CI, 0.83-3.14) in the group with APCDs (15 comparisons, 1991 patients) compared with standard compression (1675 patients).13,14,18,2631,3335,38 The RR of receiving a blood transfusion was 1.21 (95% CI, 0.57-2.55) in the group with APCDs (14 comparisons, 1737 patients) compared with standard compression (1424 patients).13,14,2629,31,33,35,37,38 The RR of arterial leg ischemia was 2.10 (95% CI, 0.97-4.58) in the group with APCDs (7 comparisons, 1036 patients) compared with standard compression (1060 patients).20,23,26,27,3335

Efficacy

Time to hemostasis was shorter in the group with APCDs compared with standard compression (mean difference, 17 minutes; range, 14-19 minutes).10,12,13,16,18,21,24,25,2830,3337 There was a high degree of statistical heterogeneity (I2= 96%), which may partly be explained by clinical heterogeneity; time points of assessment were often driven by protocol. Selective nonreporting of smaller differences (that is, not strongly favoring APCDs) may be possible (mean bias, −7.56; 95% CI, −10.87 to −4.26) (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Funnel Plot for Time to Hemostasis
Graphic Jump Location
The mean difference of each trial is plotted against its precision. The dotted vertical line is the pooled mean difference. Ideally, the funnel should have a symmetrical shape around the overall effect with a wide base and a narrow peak. The skewness in the figure indicates that small studies showing a less pronounced time difference between devices and standard compression are missing from the published literature.

Duration of bed rest was also shorter in the group with APCDs (1283 patients) compared with standard compression (14 comparisons, 1142 patients) (mean difference, 10.8 hours; 95% CI, 8.5-13.1 hours).10,12,18,21,28,29,3336 There was strong evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 98%) or publication bias in favor of APCDs (mean bias, −6.08; 95% CI, −11.44 to −0.72). However, the data are difficult to interpret because this end point was mainly driven by protocol and not necessarily a result of the intervention.

Duration of hospital stay was shorter in the group with APCDs (4 comparisons, 447 patients) compared with standard compression (368 patients) (mean difference, 0.6 days; 95% CI, 0.1-1.1 days).12,25,32,35 There was some evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 58%) and publication bias (0.69; 95% CI, −6.23 to 7.61). This end point was mainly driven by protocol.

Sensitivity Analysis

The association between the intervention and the outcomes was not influenced when looking at an exclusive manual compression control group vs a standard manual compression control group (P>.13 for all 4 outcomes). It was also not influenced by type of APCD (Vasoseal, Angioseal, Duett, Perclose; P>.20 for all 4 devices and all outcomes) and whether a diagnostic angiography or a coronary intervention was performed (P>.40 for all outcomes).

When the analysis was not explicitly reported to be intention-to-treat, trials found a harmful effect less often for APCDs for hematoma (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29-1.06; P = .08) and pseudoaneurysm (RR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.91; P = .04). When allocation was not concealed, trials were less likely to find a harmful effect of APCDs in terms of bleeding compared with trials with reported concealment (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18-0.99; P = .05).

Other main outcomes were not influenced by study quality (all P values >.10). We repeated the analysis including only trials with explicit intention-to-treat analyses. The RR of hematoma was higher in the APCD group (1.89; 95% CI, 1.13-3.15) (4 comparisons, 414 patients in APCD group, 259 patients in control group); the RR of developing a pseudoaneurysm was also higher in the APCD group (5.40; 95% CI, 1.21-24.5) (same 4 comparisons as above). When analyzing only trials in which allocation concealment was explicitly reported, the RR of bleeding was comparable between the groups (0.97; 95% CI, 0.33-2.83) (3 comparisons, 730 patients in APCD group vs 575 patients in control group).

We are aware of 2 systematic reviews on the topic of hemostatic APCDs. The first is an economic evaluation that used a systematic review of MEDLINE to determine a decision analysis.43 Search strategy, inclusion criteria, and exclusion criteria of this review are not clear. The authors did not look at methodological quality, except whether the trials were randomized or not. The authors included 4 randomized controlled trials and 16 nonrandomized studies. It is not clear how the data were quantitatively summarized. This review found no significant difference in the incidence of hematoma, blood transfusion, pseudoaneurysm, or arteriovenous fistula formation between intervention (APCD) and control groups.

A second review presented data from a MEDLINE review and from abstracts presented at selected scientific meetings.44 Search strategy, inclusion criteria, and exclusion criteria are not clear. Methodological quality of the trials was not assessed and not all were randomized trials. The author of that review looked at hemostasis success rates and minor and major complication rates. The qualitative description of the end points is comprehensive and the author points out a great deal of heterogeneity involving the definition of end points. Major complications occurred more often when particular devices (collagen plugs without an anchor) were compared with standard compression (3.8% vs 1.7%).

In an observational study, Dangas et al45 assessed the incidence of vascular complications comparing APCDs with manual compression after percutaneous coronary interventions. The use of an APCD was associated with a significantly higher rate of hematoma (9.3% vs 5.1%; P<.001), greater decrease in hematocrit (5.2% vs 2.5%; P<.001), and increased need for surgical repair (2.5% vs 1.5%; P = .003). In another observational study, Applegate et al5 evaluated the outcome of 4525 patients after percutaneous coronary intervention with concomitant glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor therapy and different types of closure methods. Compared with manual compression, the RR for developing a major complication (vascular death, vascular repair, major bleeding, vessel occlusion, loss of pulse) was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.45-2.48) for Angioseal and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.42-1.38) for Perclose.

The patients studied in the trials in our systematic review were generally comparable with patients who undergo cardiac catheterization. A broad range of clinical, hospital, and geographic settings increase external validity. Unfortunately, the internal validity of many trials is not clear because most did not report according to a minimum of required standards.40

It appears that low trial quality biased the results in favor of APCDs. Even when ignoring trial quality, the precision for some estimates is not satisfactory. For instance, based on our 95% CIs, local surgery may be less often necessary by a factor of 0.83, but it also might be required 3.41 times more often when APCDs are used. Unless prospectively defined, the ideal width for a 95% CI to assume equivalence is difficult to determine, but we can give some estimates to guide the reader. The incidence of hematoma in the manual compression group ranged from zero in some studies and reached up to 35% in others.23 Accordingly an RR of 1.51 (the upper 95% confidence limit of our meta-analysis) translates to a number needed to harm of about 6 (Table 2). Based on our results, it is possible that for every 43 patients treated with an APCD, 1 patient will need vascular surgery. According to the literature, groin hematoma is expected in 5% to 23% of patients after manual compression, pseudoaneurysm in 0.5% to 9%, and arteriovenous fistula in 0.2% to 2%.4 These are worst-case scenarios, but are within the statistical precision based on the available evidence.

Although, we tried to identify all relevant trials, it is possible that some unpublished studies might have been missed. The funnel plot, for example, was not ideally shaped for trials reporting time to hemostasis. It is possible that trials reporting small differences in hemostasis time between the intervention and control groups were selectively not published (Figure 4). More likely, this is a marker of clinical heterogeneity. The time points of assessment are defined by protocol and are not necessarily the result of the intervention. One might argue that presenting summary estimates in the presence of such a high degree of heterogeneity is questionable.

It should also be taken into consideration that many trials used the earliest version of such devices. Furthermore, a learning curve for the interventionalist using such devices can be assumed. Safety may have improved because the devices have been improved and interventionalists have gained experience. However, we do not know if this translates into a clinically appreciable effect.

Some may argue that it is inappropriate to combine results for all APCDs because they are very different. In meta-regression analysis the effect was not influenced by type of device. It also was not influenced by the choice of control group (exclusively manual compression vs standard manual compression, in which mechanical devices were also used). The statistical power of such analyses is low. However, when looking at 95% CIs or P values, we do not have the impression that a large difference between groups is likely.

Finally, varying definitions for the same outcome parameters were applied.44 For example, bleeding has not been further characterized in some studies, but has been defined in others as bleeding causing local compression,27 as subcutaneous bleeding,11 or as any bleeding regardless of severity.14 We assume that the meticulous definition and assessment of bleeding16 led to heterogeneity. Ideally, vascular complications should be recorded in a standardized way. Guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association on percutaneous coronary intervention provide useful definitions.1

In this systematic review, APCDs appear to be effective in terms of reducing time to hemostasis. Currently, there is not enough evidence to assess whether this translates into a clinically relevant benefit, such as reduced hospital stay. Most of the studies were of low methodological reporting quality. When looking only at studies with a higher methodological quality, complications such as hematoma and pseudoaneurysm formation occurred more often when APCDs were used.

Although APCDs are used widely in clinical practice, the safety of their use must be pursued further. It appears that manufacturers of such devices have an obligation to demonstrate efficacy and safety based on large-scale, high-quality randomized trials. Additional strategies may be found by conducting individual patient data meta-analysis, and also by tracking device use and safety data by pooling resources using registries or other relevant platforms.46,47

Smith Jr SC, Dove JT, Jacobs AK.  et al.  A report from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines.  J Am Coll Cardiol.2001;37:2215-2239.
Douglas JJ, King III S. Development of balloon angioplasty. In: Hurst's the Heart, Manual of Cardiology. 10th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2001:327.
Silber S. ESC guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions [press release]. Available at: http://www.escardio.org/VPO/2003/Guidelines%20-%20PCI.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2003.
Nasser T, Mohleri EI, Wilensky R, Hathaway D. Peripheral vascular complications following coronary interventional procedures.  Clin Cardiol.1995;18:609-614.
PubMed
Applegate R, Grabarczyk M, Little W.  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.
PubMed
Resnic F, Blake G, Ohno-Machado L, Selwyn A, Popma J, Rogers C. Vascular closure devices and the risk of vascular complications after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients receiving glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors.  Am J Cardiol.2001;88:493-496.
PubMed
Waksman R, King III S, Douglas JJ.  et al.  Predictors of groin complications after balloon and new-device coronary intervention.  Am J Cardiol.1995;75:886-889.
PubMed
Omoigui N, Califf R, Pieper K.  et al.  Peripheral vascular complications in the Coronary Angioplasty Versus Excisional Artherectomy Trial (CAVEAT-I).  J Am Coll Cardiol.1995;26:922-930.
PubMed
Condon Jr JV, Elsner GB, Nootens MT.  et al.  Comparison of hemostasis time and vascular complications between the Angio-Seal hemostatic puncture closure and device and manual pressure.  Circulation.1995;92(8 suppl):I599.
De Swart H, Dijkman L, Van Ommen V.  et al.  The hemostatic puncture closure device shortens time to hemostasis and ambulation after arterial catheterization.  J Am Coll Cardiol.1994;24(suppl):355A.
Doneux P, Gach O, Martinez C, Legrand V. Femoral puncture closure devices versus manual compression after percutaneous coronary interventions.  Eur Heart J.2001;22(suppl):216.
Magosaki N, Hosoda S, Kawagishi N.  et al.  Efficacy of hemostatic puncture closing device for hemostasis and early ambulation after coronary angiography and angioplasty: results of a multicenter trial.  J Cardiol.1999;34:131-138.
PubMed
Murray CD, Mortazavi A, Warth DC, Buchbinder M. A randomized controlled prospective study of the Angio-Seal device versus manual pressure for rapid arterial puncture closure.  Circulation.1996;94(8 suppl):I376.
Ward SR, Casale P, Raymond R.  et al.  Efficacy and safety of a hemostatic puncture closure device with early ambulation after coronary angiography.  Am J Cardiol.1998;81:569-572.
PubMed
Sievert H, Becker T, Wander T.  et al.  Stopping bleeding after PTCA.  Zeitschrift für Kardiologie.1999;88(suppl 2):108.
Kussmaul III WG, Buchbinder M, Whitlow PL.  et al.  Rapid arterial hemostasis and decreased access site complications after cardiac catheterization and angioplasty.  J Am Coll Cardiol.1995;25:1685-1692.
PubMed
Landis D, Crater S, Lowrie M.  et al.  Does the use of an absorbable femoral arterial closure device reduce length of stay and costs after diagnostic angiography compared to standard compression?  Eur Heart J.1997;18(suppl):232.
Seidelin P, Adelman A. Mobilization within thirty minutes of elective diagnostic coronary angiography.  J Interv Cardiol.1997;10:409-415.
Chevalier B, Lancelin B, Puel J.  et al.  Does arterial sealing device decrease the rate of local complication?  Circulation.1999;110:I-447.
Chevalier B, Henry M, Pilliere R.  et al.  Duplex scan assessment of femoral access for coronary stenting.  Eur Heart J.2000;21(suppl):642.
Brachmann J, Ansah M, Kosinski EJ, Schuler GC. Improved clinical effectiveness with a collagen vascular hemostasis device for shortened immobilization time following diagnostic angiography and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty.  Am J Cardiol.1998;81:1502-1505.
PubMed
Brown III CL, Freschi LA, Blincoe WA.  et al.  A prospective, randomized trial and cost-effectiveness study of the VasoSeal collagen plug vs manual arterial pressure in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization.  Circulation.1997;96(8 suppl):I618.
Camenzind E, Grossholz M, Urban P.  et al.  Collagen application versus manual compression.  J Am Coll Cardiol.1994;24:655-662.
PubMed
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;48:121-126.
PubMed
Silber S, Bjorvik A, Muhling H, Rosch A. Usefulness of collagen plugging with VasoSeal after PTCA as compared to manual compression with identical sheath dwell times.  Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn.1998;43:421-427.
PubMed
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?  Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn.1995;34:210-214.
PubMed
Von Hoch F, Neumann FJ, Theiss W, Kastrati A, Schomig A. Efficacy and safety of collagen implants for haemostasis of the vascular access site after coronary balloon angioplasty and coronary stent implantation: a randomized study.  Eur Heart J.1995;16:640-646.
PubMed
Gibbs HH, Molloy TJ, Shaftel P, Barra LA, Sanborn TA. Reduced hemostasis time and early ambulation following percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty using a collagen vascular hemostasis device.  Aust N Z J Med.1993;23:628.
Sanborn TA, Gibbs HH, Brinker JA.  et al.  A multicenter randomized trial comparing a percutaneous collagen hemostasis device with conventional manual compression after diagnostic angiography and angioplasty.  J Am Coll Cardiol.1993;22:1273-1279.
PubMed
Cope G, Mews G, Cumpston G.  et al.  Controlled trial of a vascular heamostasis device, ‘Vasoseal', after coronary angioplasty.  Aust N Z J Med.1994;24:650.
Ellis SG. Assessment of the safety and efficacy of the Duett vascular hemostasis device.  Am Heart J.2002;143:612-619.
PubMed
Zhang Z, Mahoney EM, Gershony G.  et al.  Impact of the Duett sealing device on quality of life and hospitalization costs for coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures.  Am Heart J.2001;142:982-988.
PubMed
El Amine S, Teiger E, Aptecar E, Dubois-Rande JL, Pernes JM, Dupouy P. Percutaneous suture of femoral artery after diagnostic coronary angiography.  Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss.1999;92:1447-1453.
PubMed
Gerckens U, Cattelaens N, Lampe EG.  et al.  Management of arterial puncture site after catheterization procedures.  Am J Cardiol.1999;83:1658-1663.
PubMed
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;19:451-455.
PubMed
Rickli H, Unterweger M, Sutsch 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.
PubMed
Tron C, Koning R, Eltchaninoff H, Janorkar S, Douillet R, Cribier A. Femoral artery closure after PTCA.  Eur Heart J.1998;19(suppl):392.
Baim DS, Knopf WD, Hinohara T.  et al.  Suture-mediated closure of the femoral access site after cardiac catheterization.  Am J Cardiol.2000;85:864-869.
PubMed
Moher D, Schulz K, Altman D. The CONSORT statement.  JAMA.2001;285:1987-1991.
PubMed
Schulz K, Chalmers I, Hayes R, Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias.  JAMA.1995;273:408-412.
PubMed
Higgins J, Thompson S. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.  Stat Med.2002;21:1539-1558.
PubMed
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.  BMJ.1997;315:629-634.
PubMed
Bos J, Hunink M, Mali W. Use of a collagen hemostatic closure device to achieve hemostasis after arterial puncture.  J Vasc Interv Radiol.1996;7:479-486.
PubMed
Silber S. Hemostasis success rates and local complications with collagen after femoral access for cardiac catheterization.  Am Heart J.1998;135:152-156.
PubMed
Dangas G, Mehran R, Kokolis S.  et al.  Vascular complications after percutaneous coronary interventions following hemostasis with manual compression versus arterial puncture closing devices.  J Am Coll Cardiol.2001;38:638-641.
PubMed
 University HealthSystem Consortium. Available at: http://www.uhc.edu. Accessed October 23, 2003.
 ACC National Cardiovascular Database Registry. Available at: http://www.acc.org/ncdr/index.htm. Accessed November 4, 2003.

Figures

Figure 2. Groin Hematoma and Bleeding
Graphic Jump Location
CI indicates confidence interval; RR, relative risk. Murray et al13 provided 2 comparisons using 2 different forms of collagen. Sanborn et al29 provided 2 comparisons because data were presented for 2 strata: one when diagnostic angiography was performed and another when coronary angioplasty was performed. The size of the point estimates is defined by study weight. The weight is a function of the number of events, the total number of participants, and the random-effects method used to combine the trials.
Figure 3. Arteriovenous Fistula and Psuedoaneurysm
Graphic Jump Location
CI indicates confidence interval; RR, relative risk. Sanborn et al29 provided 2 comparisons because data were presented for 2 strata: one when diagnostic angiography was performed and another when coronary angioplasty was performed. The size of the point estimates is defined by study weight. The weight is a function of the number of events, the total number of participants, and the random-effects method used to combine the trials.
Figure 4. Funnel Plot for Time to Hemostasis
Graphic Jump Location
The mean difference of each trial is plotted against its precision. The dotted vertical line is the pooled mean difference. Ideally, the funnel should have a symmetrical shape around the overall effect with a wide base and a narrow peak. The skewness in the figure indicates that small studies showing a less pronounced time difference between devices and standard compression are missing from the published literature.

References

Smith Jr SC, Dove JT, Jacobs AK.  et al.  A report from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines.  J Am Coll Cardiol.2001;37:2215-2239.
Douglas JJ, King III S. Development of balloon angioplasty. In: Hurst's the Heart, Manual of Cardiology. 10th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2001:327.
Silber S. ESC guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions [press release]. Available at: http://www.escardio.org/VPO/2003/Guidelines%20-%20PCI.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2003.
Nasser T, Mohleri EI, Wilensky R, Hathaway D. Peripheral vascular complications following coronary interventional procedures.  Clin Cardiol.1995;18:609-614.
PubMed
Applegate R, Grabarczyk M, Little W.  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.
PubMed
Resnic F, Blake G, Ohno-Machado L, Selwyn A, Popma J, Rogers C. Vascular closure devices and the risk of vascular complications after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients receiving glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors.  Am J Cardiol.2001;88:493-496.
PubMed
Waksman R, King III S, Douglas JJ.  et al.  Predictors of groin complications after balloon and new-device coronary intervention.  Am J Cardiol.1995;75:886-889.
PubMed
Omoigui N, Califf R, Pieper K.  et al.  Peripheral vascular complications in the Coronary Angioplasty Versus Excisional Artherectomy Trial (CAVEAT-I).  J Am Coll Cardiol.1995;26:922-930.
PubMed
Condon Jr JV, Elsner GB, Nootens MT.  et al.  Comparison of hemostasis time and vascular complications between the Angio-Seal hemostatic puncture closure and device and manual pressure.  Circulation.1995;92(8 suppl):I599.
De Swart H, Dijkman L, Van Ommen V.  et al.  The hemostatic puncture closure device shortens time to hemostasis and ambulation after arterial catheterization.  J Am Coll Cardiol.1994;24(suppl):355A.
Doneux P, Gach O, Martinez C, Legrand V. Femoral puncture closure devices versus manual compression after percutaneous coronary interventions.  Eur Heart J.2001;22(suppl):216.
Magosaki N, Hosoda S, Kawagishi N.  et al.  Efficacy of hemostatic puncture closing device for hemostasis and early ambulation after coronary angiography and angioplasty: results of a multicenter trial.  J Cardiol.1999;34:131-138.
PubMed
Murray CD, Mortazavi A, Warth DC, Buchbinder M. A randomized controlled prospective study of the Angio-Seal device versus manual pressure for rapid arterial puncture closure.  Circulation.1996;94(8 suppl):I376.
Ward SR, Casale P, Raymond R.  et al.  Efficacy and safety of a hemostatic puncture closure device with early ambulation after coronary angiography.  Am J Cardiol.1998;81:569-572.
PubMed
Sievert H, Becker T, Wander T.  et al.  Stopping bleeding after PTCA.  Zeitschrift für Kardiologie.1999;88(suppl 2):108.
Kussmaul III WG, Buchbinder M, Whitlow PL.  et al.  Rapid arterial hemostasis and decreased access site complications after cardiac catheterization and angioplasty.  J Am Coll Cardiol.1995;25:1685-1692.
PubMed
Landis D, Crater S, Lowrie M.  et al.  Does the use of an absorbable femoral arterial closure device reduce length of stay and costs after diagnostic angiography compared to standard compression?  Eur Heart J.1997;18(suppl):232.
Seidelin P, Adelman A. Mobilization within thirty minutes of elective diagnostic coronary angiography.  J Interv Cardiol.1997;10:409-415.
Chevalier B, Lancelin B, Puel J.  et al.  Does arterial sealing device decrease the rate of local complication?  Circulation.1999;110:I-447.
Chevalier B, Henry M, Pilliere R.  et al.  Duplex scan assessment of femoral access for coronary stenting.  Eur Heart J.2000;21(suppl):642.
Brachmann J, Ansah M, Kosinski EJ, Schuler GC. Improved clinical effectiveness with a collagen vascular hemostasis device for shortened immobilization time following diagnostic angiography and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty.  Am J Cardiol.1998;81:1502-1505.
PubMed
Brown III CL, Freschi LA, Blincoe WA.  et al.  A prospective, randomized trial and cost-effectiveness study of the VasoSeal collagen plug vs manual arterial pressure in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization.  Circulation.1997;96(8 suppl):I618.
Camenzind E, Grossholz M, Urban P.  et al.  Collagen application versus manual compression.  J Am Coll Cardiol.1994;24:655-662.
PubMed
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;48:121-126.
PubMed
Silber S, Bjorvik A, Muhling H, Rosch A. Usefulness of collagen plugging with VasoSeal after PTCA as compared to manual compression with identical sheath dwell times.  Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn.1998;43:421-427.
PubMed
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?  Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn.1995;34:210-214.
PubMed
Von Hoch F, Neumann FJ, Theiss W, Kastrati A, Schomig A. Efficacy and safety of collagen implants for haemostasis of the vascular access site after coronary balloon angioplasty and coronary stent implantation: a randomized study.  Eur Heart J.1995;16:640-646.
PubMed
Gibbs HH, Molloy TJ, Shaftel P, Barra LA, Sanborn TA. Reduced hemostasis time and early ambulation following percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty using a collagen vascular hemostasis device.  Aust N Z J Med.1993;23:628.
Sanborn TA, Gibbs HH, Brinker JA.  et al.  A multicenter randomized trial comparing a percutaneous collagen hemostasis device with conventional manual compression after diagnostic angiography and angioplasty.  J Am Coll Cardiol.1993;22:1273-1279.
PubMed
Cope G, Mews G, Cumpston G.  et al.  Controlled trial of a vascular heamostasis device, ‘Vasoseal', after coronary angioplasty.  Aust N Z J Med.1994;24:650.
Ellis SG. Assessment of the safety and efficacy of the Duett vascular hemostasis device.  Am Heart J.2002;143:612-619.
PubMed
Zhang Z, Mahoney EM, Gershony G.  et al.  Impact of the Duett sealing device on quality of life and hospitalization costs for coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures.  Am Heart J.2001;142:982-988.
PubMed
El Amine S, Teiger E, Aptecar E, Dubois-Rande JL, Pernes JM, Dupouy P. Percutaneous suture of femoral artery after diagnostic coronary angiography.  Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss.1999;92:1447-1453.
PubMed
Gerckens U, Cattelaens N, Lampe EG.  et al.  Management of arterial puncture site after catheterization procedures.  Am J Cardiol.1999;83:1658-1663.
PubMed
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;19:451-455.
PubMed
Rickli H, Unterweger M, Sutsch 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.
PubMed
Tron C, Koning R, Eltchaninoff H, Janorkar S, Douillet R, Cribier A. Femoral artery closure after PTCA.  Eur Heart J.1998;19(suppl):392.
Baim DS, Knopf WD, Hinohara T.  et al.  Suture-mediated closure of the femoral access site after cardiac catheterization.  Am J Cardiol.2000;85:864-869.
PubMed
Moher D, Schulz K, Altman D. The CONSORT statement.  JAMA.2001;285:1987-1991.
PubMed
Schulz K, Chalmers I, Hayes R, Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias.  JAMA.1995;273:408-412.
PubMed
Higgins J, Thompson S. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.  Stat Med.2002;21:1539-1558.
PubMed
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.  BMJ.1997;315:629-634.
PubMed
Bos J, Hunink M, Mali W. Use of a collagen hemostatic closure device to achieve hemostasis after arterial puncture.  J Vasc Interv Radiol.1996;7:479-486.
PubMed
Silber S. Hemostasis success rates and local complications with collagen after femoral access for cardiac catheterization.  Am Heart J.1998;135:152-156.
PubMed
Dangas G, Mehran R, Kokolis S.  et al.  Vascular complications after percutaneous coronary interventions following hemostasis with manual compression versus arterial puncture closing devices.  J Am Coll Cardiol.2001;38:638-641.
PubMed
 University HealthSystem Consortium. Available at: http://www.uhc.edu. Accessed October 23, 2003.
 ACC National Cardiovascular Database Registry. Available at: http://www.acc.org/ncdr/index.htm. Accessed November 4, 2003.
CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 278

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination
What Adverse Events Can Result From a Paracentesis?