Department of Cardiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Cardiology, Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Jan 25;14(2):149-157. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.09.052. Epub 2020 Dec 23.
This study sought to test the superiority in terms of efficacy and safety of a dedicated plug-based vascular closure device (VCD) during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) over a suture-based VCD.
Vascular complications after TAVR are relevant and often associated with VCD failure.
The MASH (MANTA vs. Suture-based vascular closure after transcatHeter aortic valve replacement) trial is an international, 2-center pilot randomized controlled trial comparing the MANTA VCD (Teleflex, Wayne, Pennsylvania) versus 2 ProGlides (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, Illinois). The primary composite endpoint consisted of access site-related major or minor vascular complications at 30-days' follow-up. Secondary endpoints included clinically relevant access site bleeding, time to hemostasis, and modified VCD failure (defined as failure to achieve hemostasis within 5 min or requiring additional endovascular maneuvers such as endovascular stenting, surgical techniques, or additional closure devices). Adverse events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee according to the VARC-2 definitions.
A total of 210 TAVR patients were included between October 2018 and January 2020. Median age was 81 years, 54% were male, and the median STS score was 2.7%. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of access site-related vascular complications between MANTA and ProGlide (10% vs. 4%; p = 0.16). Clinically significant access site bleedings were similar with both closure techniques (9% vs. 6%; p = 0.57). Modified VCD failure occurred less frequently in MANTA versus ProGlide (20% vs. 40%; p < 0.01). Suture-based closure required more often additional closure devices, whereas MANTA numerically needed more covered stents and surgical bailouts.
Plug-based large-bore arteriotomy closure was not superior to suture-based closure. Plug-based closure required fewer, but a different kind of bailout maneuvers.
本研究旨在验证在经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)中,专用 Plug 型血管闭合装置(VCD)在疗效和安全性方面是否优于缝线型 VCD。
TAVR 后的血管并发症很重要,并且常与 VCD 失败有关。
MASH(MANTA 与经导管主动脉瓣置换术后缝线型血管闭合的比较)试验是一项国际性的、2 中心的前瞻性随机对照试验,比较了 MANTA VCD(Teleflex,宾夕法尼亚州 Wayne)与 2 个 ProGlide(雅培血管,伊利诺伊州雅培公园)。主要复合终点包括 30 天随访时与入路相关的主要或次要血管并发症。次要终点包括临床上相关的入路部位出血、止血时间和改良的 VCD 失败(定义为 5 分钟内无法止血或需要额外的血管内操作,如血管内支架置入、手术技术或额外的闭合装置)。不良事件根据 VARC-2 定义由独立临床事件委员会裁定。
2018 年 10 月至 2020 年 1 月期间,共纳入 210 例 TAVR 患者。中位年龄为 81 岁,54%为男性,中位 STS 评分 2.7%。MANTA 与 ProGlide 组在与入路相关的血管并发症主要终点方面无显著差异(10%比 4%;p=0.16)。两种闭合技术的临床显著的入路部位出血相似(9%比 6%;p=0.57)。MANTA 组的改良 VCD 失败发生率明显低于 ProGlide 组(20%比 40%;p<0.01)。缝线型闭合需要更多的额外闭合装置,而 MANTA 则需要更多的覆盖支架和手术紧急救援。
Plug 型大口径动脉切开闭合术并不优于缝线型闭合术。Plug 型闭合需要的紧急救援操作较少,但类型不同。