Baker Nevin C, Escarcega Ricardo O, Lipinski Michael J, Magalhaes Marco A, Koifman Edward, Kiramijyan Sarkis, Negi Smita I, Torguson Rebecca, Waksman Ron
Department of Interventional Cardiology, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, District of Columbia.
J Interv Cardiol. 2016 Feb;29(1):108-12. doi: 10.1111/joic.12264. Epub 2016 Jan 5.
We evaluate the prevalence of complications and failure rates between the most commonly used "active" anchoring vascular closure device (VCD), AngioSeal™ and the "passive" anchoring VCD, Mynx™, in all-comers undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
A total of 4,074 patients between 2008 and 2014, representing an era when both devices were available, were included. Thirty-two percent were acute coronary syndromes (37% STEMI). VCD choice was at the operator's discretion and included AngioSeal (n = 2,910) or Mynx (1,164). Cardiogenic shock or patients receiving intra-aortic balloon pumps were excluded. Safety was assessed by vascular complications defined as either vascular injury (perforation, dissection, acute limb ischemia, arteriovenous fistula, pseudoaneurysm with thrombin injection, or surgical repair) or access-site bleed (hemoglobin droP >3 g/dL requiring transfusion, retroperitoneal bleed, or hematoma >5 cm, or the composite of both. Efficacy was evaluated by device failure and defined as inability to achieve immediate hemostasis or use of additional hemostatic mechanisms. Outcomes at 30-days were evaluated.
Groups (AngioSeal vs Mynx) were fairly balanced with regards to bleeding risk factors of gender (male, 65% vs 66%), body mass index (30 ± 6 vs 30 ± 7), heart failure class III/IV (5% vs 6%), chronic kidney disease (15% vs 17%), use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (5% vs 4%), or bivalirudin (86% vs 88%), all P >0.5. The AngioSeal group was slightly younger (64 ± 12 vs 65 ± 12, P < 0.001) with less peripheral arterial disease (11.3% vs 13.9%, P = 0.03), and increased 7F sheath use compared with Mynx (59% vs 22%, P < 0.001). Safety and efficacy outcomes were similar between groups.
AngioSeal and Mynx appear to be equally safe and efficacious VCDs following PCI. The passive anchoring system may prove desirable as no intra-arterial anchor remains upon device removal.
我们评估了在接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的所有患者中,最常用的“主动”锚定血管闭合装置(VCD)AngioSeal™与“被动”锚定VCD Mynx™之间并发症的发生率和失败率。
纳入了2008年至2014年间共4074例患者,这代表了两种装置都可用的时期。32%为急性冠状动脉综合征(37%为ST段抬高型心肌梗死)。VCD的选择由操作者自行决定,包括AngioSeal(n = 2910)或Mynx(1164)。排除心源性休克患者或接受主动脉内球囊泵治疗的患者。通过血管并发症评估安全性,血管并发症定义为血管损伤(穿孔、夹层、急性肢体缺血、动静脉瘘、注射凝血酶治疗的假性动脉瘤或手术修复)或穿刺部位出血(血红蛋白下降>3 g/dL需要输血、腹膜后出血或血肿>5 cm,或两者的复合情况)。通过装置失败评估疗效,装置失败定义为无法立即止血或使用额外的止血机制。评估30天的结局。
两组(AngioSeal组与Mynx组)在性别(男性,65%对66%)、体重指数(30±6对30±7)、心力衰竭Ⅲ/Ⅳ级(5%对6%)、慢性肾脏病(15%对17%)、使用糖蛋白IIb/IIIa抑制剂(5%对4%)或比伐卢定(86%对88%)等出血危险因素方面相当均衡,所有P>0.5。AngioSeal组患者年龄稍小(64±12对65±12,P<0.001),外周动脉疾病较少(11.3%对13.9%,P = 0.03),与Mynx组相比,使用7F鞘的比例增加(59%对22%,P<0.001)。两组间的安全性和疗效结局相似。
AngioSeal和Mynx在PCI术后似乎是同样安全有效的VCD。被动锚定系统可能是理想的,因为装置移除后动脉内没有残留锚定物。