Zako Saif, Klein Kathrin, Öz Asena, Elsobki Maei, Mourikis Philipp, Helten Carolin, Naguib David, Kelm Malte, Zeus Tobias, Polzin Amin
Department of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.
Cardiovascular Research Institute Düsseldorf (CARID), 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.
J Clin Med. 2025 Jul 24;14(15):5245. doi: 10.3390/jcm14155245.
: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is a valuable alternative to long-term anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and a high bleeding risk. However, effective vascular closure following large-bore venous access remains a clinical challenge, particularly in patients with multiple comorbidities. This study compares two venous closure techniques-Z-sutures and the suture-mediated ProGlide™ device-regarding their safety and efficacy in patients undergoing LAAO. : We conducted a single-center observational study including 163 patients treated with LAAO between 2021 and 2024. Closure was achieved via a Z-suture ( = 126) or the ProGlide™ ( = 37) based on operator preference. The primary endpoint was clinically relevant bleeding (BARC ≥ 2). The secondary endpoints included 30-day mortality and hospital stay duration. : The Z-suture group included older and more comorbid patients. Despite these differences, the bleeding rates were comparable between groups. Clinically relevant bleeding was infrequent (Z-suture: 12.6%; ProGlide™: 13.5%). No 30-day deaths occurred in either group, and their hospital stay durations were similar. : Both the Z-suture and ProGlide™ techniques demonstrated comparable safety and efficacy. Due to their simplicity and potential cost advantage, Z-sutures may be a practical alternative in routine care for high-risk patients.
左心耳封堵术(LAAO)是房颤(AF)且出血风险高的患者长期抗凝的一种有价值的替代方法。然而,大口径静脉通路后的有效血管闭合仍是一项临床挑战,尤其是在患有多种合并症的患者中。本研究比较了两种静脉闭合技术——Z形缝线和缝线介导的ProGlide™装置——在接受LAAO的患者中的安全性和有效性。
我们进行了一项单中心观察性研究,纳入了2021年至2024年间接受LAAO治疗的163例患者。根据术者偏好,通过Z形缝线(n = 126)或ProGlide™(n = 37)实现闭合。主要终点是临床相关出血(BARC≥2)。次要终点包括30天死亡率和住院时间。
Z形缝线组患者年龄更大,合并症更多。尽管存在这些差异,但两组的出血率相当。临床相关出血并不常见(Z形缝线:12.6%;ProGlide™:13.5%)。两组均未发生30天死亡,且住院时间相似。
Z形缝线和ProGlide™技术均显示出相当的安全性和有效性。由于其操作简单且可能具有成本优势,Z形缝线可能是高危患者常规护理中的一种实用替代方法。