Department of Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Germany (M.A.-W., P.H., O.D., D.O., J.W., N.M., M. Sandri, J.R.d.L., M.K., S.D., H.T.).
Department of Cardiology, Helios Klinikum Siegburg, Germany (P.B., R.M.).
Circulation. 2022 Jan 18;145(3):170-183. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057856. Epub 2021 Nov 5.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is an established treatment option for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and is most commonly performed through the transfemoral access route. Percutaneous access site closure can be achieved using dedicated plug-based or suture-based vascular closure device (VCD) strategies, but randomized comparative studies are scarce.
The CHOICE-CLOSURE trial (Randomized Comparison of Catheter-based Strategies for Interventional Access Site Closure during Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) is an investigator-initiated, multicenter study, in which patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement were randomly assigned to vascular access site closure using either a pure plug-based technique (MANTA, Teleflex) with no additional VCDs or a primary suture-based technique (ProGlide, Abbott Vascular) potentially complemented by a small plug. The primary end point consisted of access site- or access-related major and minor vascular complications during index hospitalization, defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Secondary end points included the rate of access site- or access-related bleeding, VCD failure, and time to hemostasis.
A total of 516 patients were included and randomly assigned. The mean age of the study population was 80.5±6.1 years, 55.4% were male, 7.6% of patients had peripheral vascular disease, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.1±2.9%. The primary end point occurred in 19.4% (50/258) of the pure plug-based group and 12.0% (31/258) of the primary suture-based group (relative risk, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.07-2.44], =0.029). Access site- or access-related bleeding occurred in 11.6% versus 7.4% (relative risk, 1.58 [95%CI: 0.91-2.73], =0.133) and device failure in 4.7% versus 5.4% (relative risk, 0.86, [95% CI, 0.40-1.82], =0.841) in the respective groups. Time to hemostasis was significantly shorter in the pure plug-based group (80 [32-180] versus 240 [174-316] seconds, <0.001).
Among patients treated with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement, a pure plug-based vascular closure technique using the MANTA VCD is associated with a higher rate of access site- or access-related vascular complications but a shorter time to hemostasis compared with a primary suture-based technique using the ProGlide VCD. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04459208.
经导管主动脉瓣置换术是一种治疗严重症状性主动脉瓣狭窄的既定方法,最常通过经股入路进行。经皮入路部位可以使用专用的封堵器或缝合式血管闭合装置(VCD)策略来实现,但随机比较研究却很少。
CHOICE-CLOSURE 试验(经股入路经导管主动脉瓣置换术中基于导管的策略对介入入路部位闭合的随机比较)是一项由研究者发起的多中心研究,其中接受经股经导管主动脉瓣置换术的患者被随机分配至使用纯封堵器(MANTA,Teleflex)技术进行血管入路部位闭合,无需额外使用 VCD,或使用 ProGlide(Abbott Vascular)技术进行可能需要小封堵器补充的主要缝合技术。主要终点是在指数住院期间根据 Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 标准定义的入路部位或与入路相关的主要和次要血管并发症。次要终点包括入路部位或与入路相关的出血、VCD 失败和止血时间。
共纳入并随机分配了 516 名患者。研究人群的平均年龄为 80.5±6.1 岁,55.4%为男性,7.6%的患者有外周血管疾病,平均胸外科医生协会评分 4.1±2.9%。主要终点在纯封堵器组中发生了 19.4%(50/258),在主要缝合组中发生了 12.0%(31/258)(相对风险,1.61[95%CI,1.07-2.44],=0.029)。入路部位或与入路相关的出血分别发生在 11.6%和 7.4%(相对风险,1.58[95%CI:0.91-2.73],=0.133),器械失效分别发生在 4.7%和 5.4%(相对风险,0.86,[95%CI,0.40-1.82],=0.841)。纯封堵器组止血时间明显缩短(80[32-180]与 240[174-316]秒,<0.001)。
在接受经股经导管主动脉瓣置换术治疗的患者中,与使用 ProGlide VCD 的主要缝合式血管闭合技术相比,使用 MANTA VCD 的纯封堵器血管闭合技术与更高的入路部位或与入路相关的血管并发症发生率相关,但止血时间更短。