Analysis of vascular closure devices after transbrachial artery access

Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2014 Oct-Nov;48(7-8):466-9. doi: 10.1177/1538574414551576. Epub 2014 Sep 28.

Abstract

Introduction: We seek to determine whether vascular closure devices (VCDs) are safe and effective for brachial artery access.

Methods: A retrospective review of brachial artery access using either manual compression (MC) or a VCD for hemostasis from November 2005 to February 2011 was performed.

Results: Brachial artery access was performed on 154 limbs: MC on 134 limbs and VCD on 20 limbs. The incidence of thrombotic (VCD n = 0 [0%] vs MC n = 7 [5.2%], P = .37), hemorrhagic complications (VCD n = 1 [5%] vs MC n = 7 [5.2%], P = .72), or major adverse events (VCD n = 1 [5%] vs MC n = 16 [12%], P = .32) was not significantly different between the techniques. After univariate and multivariate analysis, female sex (P = .07, relative risk [RR] = 5.7), sheath size > 6F (P = .008, RR = 14.6), and diagnostic versus interventional procedure (P = .04, RR = 0.4) all impacted the occurrence of thrombosis.

Conclusions: Use of VCD in the brachial artery following an endovascular procedure showed equivalence to MC.

Keywords: brachial artery thrombosis; hemorrhagic complications; hemostasis; manual compression; thrombotic complications; vascular closure device.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Brachial Artery*
  • Catheterization, Peripheral / adverse effects*
  • Chi-Square Distribution
  • Equipment Design
  • Female
  • Hemorrhage / etiology
  • Hemorrhage / prevention & control*
  • Hemostatic Techniques / adverse effects
  • Hemostatic Techniques / instrumentation*
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Multivariate Analysis
  • Pressure
  • Punctures
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Risk Factors
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Vascular Closure Devices*