Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Retrospective Review on Feasibility and Safety of a New Pneumatic Compression Device for Femoral Arteriotomy Hemostasis

  • Kang, Min-Ho (Department of Radiology, Chungbuk National University Hospital) ;
  • Shin, Sung-Wook (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • Published : 2012.02.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To report our initial experience on the technical feasibility and safety for hemostasis of a new pneumatic compression device in patients undergoing femoral arteriotomy. Materials and Methods: This study included 40 consecutive patients in whom hemostasis after transfemoral catheterization was readered by using a pneumatic compression device consisting of an inflatable bulb-containing main body and four pieces of supplementary tape. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for outcomes and complications of hemostasis. Technical success was defined as achieving immediate hemostasis 10 minutes after applying the device over the arteriotomy sites, and clinical success was defined as the ability to ambulate after 4 hours of bed rest without any complications. Results: Technical and clinical success was achieved in 38 (95%) and 37 (93%) patients, respectively. In two patients, hemostasis was achieved after conversion to manual compression. One patient required sand bag placement after removal of the device to control minimal oozing of blood. No patients had late complications. Conclusion: The new pneumatic compression device provides effective and safe hemostasis after transfemoral catheterization in selected patient populations.

Keywords

References

  1. Madigan JB, Ratnam LA, Belli AM. Arterial closure devices. A review. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2007;48:607-624
  2. Bent CL, Kyriakides C, Matson M. Femoral artery stenosis following percutaneous closure using a starclose closure device. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2008;31:814-816 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-008-9341-5
  3. Brueck M, Bandorski D, Rauber K, Boening A. Percutaneous transluminal dilatation of inadvertent partial or complete occlusion of the femoral artery caused by Angio-Seal deployment for puncture site closure after cardiac catheterization. J Invasive Cardiol 2010;22:353-357
  4. Cooper CL, Miller A. Infectious complications related to the use of the angio-seal hemostatic puncture closure device. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 1999;48:301-303 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-726X(199911)48:3<301::AID-CCD15>3.0.CO;2-F
  5. Jang JJ, Kim M, Gray B, Bacharach JM, Olin JW. Claudication secondary to Perclose use after percutaneous procedures. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006;67:687-695 https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.20646
  6. Kim YJ, Yoon HK, Ko GY, Shin JH, Sung KB. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of suture-mediated closure device-related femoral artery stenosis or occlusive disease. Br J Radiol 2009;82:486-490 https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/25029516
  7. Stone PA, Campbell JE, Andrews KH, Bates MC. Posterior wall capture and resultant common femoral occlusion complicating StarClose access closure. J Vasc Surg 2008;48:469-471 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2008.03.013
  8. Dangas G, Mehran R, Kokolis S, Feldman D, Satler LF, Pichard AD, et al. Vascular complications after percutaneous coronary interventions following hemostasis with manual compression versus arteriotomy closure devices. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;38:638-641 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(01)01449-8
  9. Koreny M, Riedmuller E, Nikfardjam M, Siostrzonek P, Mullner M. Arterial puncture closing devices compared with standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2004;291:350-357 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.3.350
  10. Chamberlin JR, Lardi AB, McKeever LS, Wang MH, Ramadurai G, Grunenwald P, 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; discussion 148 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-726X(199906)47:2<143::AID-CCD1>3.0.CO;2-M
  11. Jaspers L, Benit E. Immediate sheath removal after PCI using a Femostop is feasible and safe. Results of a registry. Acta Cardiol 2003;58:535-537 https://doi.org/10.2143/AC.58.6.2005318
  12. Juergens CP, Leung DY, Crozier JA, Wong AM, Robinson JT, Lo S, 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 https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.20161
  13. Kunert M, Gremmler B, Schleiting H, Ulbricht LJ. Use of FemoStop system for arterial puncture site closure after coronary angioplasty. J Invasive Cardiol 2004;16:240-242
  14. Brown DB, Gould JE, Gervais DA, Goldberg SN, Murthy R, Millward SF, et al. Transcatheter therapy for hepatic malignancy: standardization of terminology and reporting criteria. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009;20:S425-434 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2009.04.021
  15. 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;7:366-375 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-172X.2001.00291.x
  16. Khaghany K, Al-Ali F, Spigelmoyer T, Pimentel R, Wharton K. Efficacy and safety of the perclose closer s device after neurointerventional procedures: prospective study and literature review. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:1420-1424
  17. Assali AR, Sdringola S, Moustapha A, Ghani M, Salloum J, Schroth G, 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
  18. 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;48:162-166 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-726X(199910)48:2<162::AID-CCD8>3.0.CO;2-2
  19. Balzer JO, Scheinert D, Diebold T, Haufe M, Vogl TJ, Biamino G. Postinterventional transcutaneous suture of femoral artery access sites in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease: a study of 930 patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2001;53:174-181 https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.1144
  20. Dauerman HL, Applegate RJ, Cohen DJ. Vascular closure devices: the second decade. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:1617-1626 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.07.028
  21. Kim HY, Choo SW, Roh HG, Han H, Kim SS, Lee JY, et al. Efficacy of femoral vascular closure devices in patients treated with anticoagulant, abciximab or thrombolytics during percutaneous endovascular procedures. Korean J Radiol 2006;7:35-40 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2006.7.1.35
  22. Wada H, Usui M, Sakuragawa N. Hemostatic abnormalities and liver diseases. Semin Thromb Hemost 2008;34:772-778 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1145259

Cited by

  1. Hemostatic Efficacy and Safety of a Novel Mechanical Compression Device for Femoral Arteriotomy vol.72, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2015.72.5.329