Interventions for valvular disease and heart failure

Dual ProGlide versus ProGlide and FemoSeal for vascular access haemostasis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

EuroIntervention 2022;18:812-819. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00311

Jonas Gmeiner
Jonas M.D. Gmeiner1, MD; Marie Linnemann1; Julius Steffen1, MD; Clemens Scherer1, MD; Martin Orban1, MD; Hans Theiss1, MD; Julinda Mehilli2, MD; Sebastian Sadoni3, MD; Sven Peterß3, MD; Dominik Joskowiak3, MD; Christian Hagl3, MD; Nikolaos Tsilimparis4, MD; Adrian Curta5, MD; Stefan Maurus5, MD; Philipp M. Doldi1, MD; Kornelia Löw1, MD; Magda Haum1, MD; Daniel Roden1, MD; Jörg Hausleiter1,6, MD; Steffen Massberg1,6, MD; Konstantinos Rizas1, MD; Simon Deseive1, MD; Daniel Braun1, MD
1. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I, LMU Klinikum München, Munich, Germany; 2. Medizinische Klinik I, Krankenhaus Landshut Achdorf, Landshut, Germany; 3. Herzchirurgische Klinik und Poliklinik, LMU Klinikum München, Munich, Germany; 4. Abteilung für Gefäßchirurgie, LMU Klinikum München, Munich, Germany; 5. Klinik und Poliklinik für Radiologie, LMU Klinikum München, Munich, Germany; 6. Munich Heart Alliance, German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Munich, Germany

Background: Large-bore arteriotomy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) requires percutaneous vascular closure devices, but real-world data comparing different closure strategies are limited.

Aims: We sought to compare a dual ProGlide strategy vs a combination of one ProGlide and one FemoSeal for vascular closure after TAVI.

Methods: We retrospectively analysed 874 propensity score-matched patients undergoing TAVI at the Munich University Hospital from August 2018 to October 2020. From August 2018 to August 2019, a dual ProGlide strategy was used for vascular closure. From October 2019 to October 2020, a combination of one ProGlide and one FemoSeal was used. The primary endpoint was defined as access-related major vascular complications or bleeding ≥Type 2 according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria.

Results: Patients in the dual ProGlide group (n=437) had a higher incidence of the primary endpoint than patients treated with one ProGlide and one FemoSeal (n=437; 11.4% vs 3.0%; p<0.001). Furthermore, they had a higher rate of closure device failure (2.7% vs 0.9%; p=0.044) and more often required unplanned surgery or endovascular treatment (3.9% vs 0.9%; p=0.004). The incidence of death did not differ significantly between groups (3.4% vs 1.6%; p=0.08).

Conclusions: A combined ProGlide and FemoSeal strategy might have the potential to reduce access-related vascular complications following TAVI.

Sign in to read and download the full article

Forgot your password?

No account yet?
Sign up for free!

Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from

access sitebleedingfemoraltavi
Read next article
Coronary access techniques following ACURATE neo2 implantation in surgical bioprosthesis

Latest news