A novel double clip-based vascular closure device in antegrade and retrograde femoral punctures: A single-center experience in peripheral non-cardiac procedures

Abstract

Background:

This retrospective study investigates the efficacy and safety of the novel Celt ACD^® vascular closure device (VCD) following antegrade and retrograde common femoral artery (CFA) punctures for the treatment of peripheral artery disease in a challenging patient collective (e.g. calcifications, obesity, and anticoagulation).

Methods:

A total of 208 VCDs (i.e. 100 antegrade and 108 retrograde) were deployed between October 2019 and December 2020 in a tertiary referral interventional radiology department. Fifty-two devices were undersized in relation to the introducer sheath (up to 2 Fr). Technical success and VCD related complications were evaluated in the immediate post procedure period and the following 24 h clinically. In 68% of cases, additional duplex ultrasound was performed prior to discharge.

Results:

The overall technical success rate was 97%. Technical failures following antegrade approach were due to a too acute access angle (⩾60°), rendering it impossible to pass the applicator tip through the sheath lumen. A subgroup analysis of technical success pinpoints severe calcification as another key limiting factor in VCD use (p = 0.004). Comparing equally sized with undersized device selection (p = 0.196), direction of approach (p = 0.265), and body mass index (p = 0.184) proved to be insignificant. Five (2%, 5/208) major complications occurred: Four antegrade (i.e. one false aneurysm, one vessel laceration with retroperitoneal hemorrhage, two device migrations; 4%, 4/100) and one following retrograde access (i.e. >6 cm hematoma, 1%, 1/108)). Complications were successfully managed with manual compression or interventional procedures.

Conclusions:

The novel clip-based VCD proved to be effective with a low VCD related complication rate.

Keywords

Vascular closure devices antegrade puncture retrograde puncture femoral access undersizing access site complications

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Das

Ahmed

Athanasiou

, et al. Arterial closure devices versus manual compression for femoral hemostasis in interventional radiological procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2011; 34(4): 723–738.

Noori

Eldrup-Jørgensen

A systematic review of vascular closure devices for femoral artery puncture sites. J Vasc Surg 2018; 68(3): 887–899.

Schwartz

Burstein

Economides

, et al. Review of vascular closure devices. J Invasive Cardiol 2010; 22(12): 599–607.

Jan

Crean

Bullesfeld

, et al. First clinical experience with Celt ACD^®: a femoral arterial puncture closure device. J Interv Cardiol 2013; 26(4): 417–424.

Shatila

Krajcer

To close or not to close?” When should vascular closure devices be used after cardiac catheterization procedures?

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 90: 766–767.

Wong

Laule

Turi

, et al. A multicenter randomized trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of a novel vascular closure device to manual compression in anticoagulated patients undergoing percutaneous transfemoral procedures: The CELT ACD trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 90(5): 756–765.

Kennedy

Rajan

Bassett

, et al. Complication rates associated with antegrade use of vascular closure devices: a systematic review and pooled-analysis. J Vasc Surg 2020: 73(2): 722–730.

Walker

Kiesz

Bertolet

, et al. A multi-center, prospective, post-market registry to evaluate procedural outcomes using the cardiva medical VASCADE vascular closure system (VCS). Vasc Dis Manage 2018; 15(9): E102–E107.

Parikh

Vascular closure devices for antegrade punctures: the evidence is mounting. Vasc Dis Manage 2018; 15(9): E108–E109.

10.

Ramirez

Zarkowsky

Sorrentino

, et al. Antegrade common femoral artery closure device use is associated with decreased complications. J Vasc Surg 2020; 72(5): 1610–1617.

11.

Spiliopoulos

Kitrou

Christeas

, et al. Starclose SE^® hemostasis after 6F direct antegrade superficial femoral artery access distal to the femoral head for peripheral endovascular procedures in obese patients. Diagn Interv Radiol 2016; 22(6): 542–547.

12.

Stoner

Calligaro

Chae

, et al. Reporting standards of the Society for Vascular Surgery for endovascular treatment of chronic lower extremity peripheral artery disease. J Vasc Surg 2016; 64(1): e1–e21.

13.

Instructions for use. Celt ACD^® Vascular closure Device. Vasorum Ltd., Dublin, Ireland. IFU-TS-002 Rev14 (SCR130), pp. 2–10.

14.

Rutherford

Baker

Ernst

, et al. Recommended standards for reports dealing with lower extremity ischemia: revised version. J Vasc Surg 1997; 26(3): 517–538.

15.

Sacks

McClenny

Cardella

, et al. Society of interventional radiology clinical practice guidelines. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003; 14(9 Pt 2): S199–S202.

16.

Aljarrah

Al-Omari

Qader

, et al. Successful surgical retrieval of Celt ACD^® vascular closure device embolised in the tibioperoneal trunk. CVIR Endovasc 2018; 1(1): 4.

17.

Cahill

Choji

Kardos

Fluoroscopy-guided snare retrieval of the Celt ACD^® metallic vascular closure device following failed deployment. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 83(4): 556–559.

18.

Fataftah

Tayyem

Ghosheh

, et al. Endovascular management of superficial femoral artery occlusion secondary to embolization of Celt ACD^® vascular closure device. Am J Case Rep 2020; 21: e925575.

19.

Chiu

Coles

Tibballs

, et al. The StarClose^® vascular closure device in antegrade and retrograde punctures: a single-center experience. J Endovasc Ther 2010; 17(1): 46–50.