Skip to main content
Free access
Research Article
31 October 2019

Clinical and economic outcomes of ProGlide compared with surgical repair of large bore arterial access

Abstract

Aim: This study compared real-world complication rates, hospitalization duration and costs, among patients undergoing arterial repair using the Perclose ProGlide (ProGlide) versus surgical cutdown (Cutdown). Materials & methods: Retrospective study of matched patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement/repair, endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, thoracic endovascular aortic repair or balloon aortic valvuloplasty with arterial repair by either ProGlide or Cutdown between 1 January 2013 and 24 April 2017. Results: Infections and blood transfusions were lower in the ProGlide cohort. Patients in the ProGlide cohort had a 42.5% shorter index hospitalization, which corresponded to US$14,687 lower costs. Conclusion: The use of ProGlide for arterial repair was associated with significantly lower transfusion rates, shorter index hospitalization and lower hospitalization costs compared with surgical cutdown.

Formats available

You can view the full content in the following formats:

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Dencker D, Pedersen F, Engstrøm T et al. Major femoral vascular access complications after coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures: a Danish register study. Int. J. Cardiol. 202, 604–608 (2016).
• Comprehensive analysis of complications from femoral access procedures.
2.
Baim DS, Knopf WD, Hinohara T et al. Suture-mediated closure of the femoral access site after cardiac catheterization: results of the Suture to Ambulate aNd Discharge (STAND I and STAND ii) trials. Am. J. Cardiol. 85(7), 864–869 (2000).
3.
Dosluoglu HH, Cherr GS, Harris LM, Dryjski ML. Total percutaneous endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms using Perclose ProGlide closure devices. J. Endovasc. Ther. 14(2), 184–188 (2007).
4.
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. 71(1), 1–5 (2008).
5.
Buck DB, Karthaus EG, Soden PA et al. Percutaneous versus femoral cutdown access for endovascular aneurysm repair. J. Vasc. Surg. 62(1), 16–21 (2015).
6.
Uhlmann ME, Walter C, Taher F, Plimon M, Falkensammer J, Assadian A. Successful percutaneous access for endovascular aneurysm repair is significantly cheaper than femoral cutdown in a prospective randomized trial. J. Vasc. Surg. 68(2), 384–391 (2018).
7.
Kerré S, Kustermans L, Vandendriessche T et al. Cost−effectiveness of contemporary vascular closure devices for the prevention of vascular complications after percutaneous coronary interventions in an all-comers PCI population. EuroIntervention 10(2), 191–197 (2014).
8.
Nelson PR, Kracjer Z, Kansal N et al. A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of totally percutaneous access versus open femoral exposure for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (the PEVAR trial). J. Vasc. Surg. 59(5), 1181–1193 (2014).
9.
Ichihashi T, Ito T, Kinoshita Y, Suzuki T, Ohte N. Safety and utility of total percutaneous endovascular aortic repair with a single Perclose ProGlide closure device. J. Vasc. Surg. 63(3), 585–588 (2016).
10.
Sekhar A, Sutton BS, Raheja P et al. Femoral arterial closure using ProGlide(R) is more efficacious and cost-effective when ambulating early following cardiac catheterization. Int. J. Cardiol. Heart Vasc. 13(Suppl. C), 6–13 (2016).
•• Prospective study which demonstrates potential for cost saving from early ambulation.
11.
Krajcer Z, Ramaiah VG, Henao EA et al. Perioperative outcomes from the prospective multicenter least invasive fast-track EVAR (LIFE) registry. J. Endovasc. Ther. 25(1), 6–13 (2018).
12.
Redfors B, Watson BM, Mcandrew T et al. Mortality, length of stay, and cost implications of procedural bleeding after percutaneous interventions using large-bore catheters. JAMA Cardiol. 2(7), 798–802 (2017).
13.
Ni ZH, Luo JF, Huang WH et al. Totally percutaneous thoracic endovascular aortic repair with the preclosing technique: a case−control study. Chin. Med. J. (Engl.) 124(6), 851–855 (2011).
14.
Vierhout BP, Pol RA, El Moumni M, Zeebregts CJ. Arteriotomy closure devices in EVAR, TEVAR, and TAVR: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials and cohort studies. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 54(1), 104–115 (2017).
•• Comprehensive analysis and comparison of use of closure devices in large bore access procedures.