Vascular closure devices
| Vascular closure devices |
Editor in Chief: Michael S. Fenster, MD [1]
Overview
At the very heart of any successful endovascular procedure is successful arterial entry and exit. The first successful cardiac catheterization, according to Andre Cournand, was performed on an equine patient in 1844 utilizing a retrograde approach through both the jugular vein and carotid artery1. Human retrograde left heart catheterization was first reported by Zimmerman[1] and Limon-Lason[2]. in 1950. Shortly thereafter in 1953, Seldinger developed the percutaneous technique and this technique was quickly adapted to left heart cardiac catheterizations. With the growth of Interventional Cardiology in the years following Grüntzig’s introduction of coronary angioplasty in 1977[3] , the percutaneous approach became, and today remains, by far the most common method of performing catheterization, angiography and endovascular intervention. Within the realm of percutaneous approaches, the majority of the procedures are performed from the femoral approach, with a minority being done from a radial approach. Brachial and axillary are also used in a minority of procedures[4]. Reasons for the continued preference of the femoral route for access includes the vessel size, operator training and equipment, radiation exposure (operator), and the advent of vascular closure devices. Studies have suggested that between 8-10% of all patients selected for a transradial approach will convert to a transfemoral route6,7,8.[5] [6] [7]
Current Limitations of Vascular Closure Devices
- Require long learning curve
- Small vessel size (<4.0–5.0mm); a contraindication to use
- Non-common femoral artery ‘sticks’; a contraindication to use
- Peripheral vascular disease; a contraindication to use (very common problem)
- Significant endoluminal device components (prone to thrombosis)
- High costs
- Require bed rest post closure
- Impaired or delayed common femoral artery re-entry (re-access concerns)
- Non-inert, very reactive, permanent and absorbable device components (therefore may be prone to infection and common femoral artery scarring)
- Catastrophic complications (1–2%, but may be underreported)
- Poorly compatible with anticoagulated patients (increased bleeding)
Complications
Infection
- After an incubation period of 2 to 29 days (average of 8 days) a vascular closure device infection can occur.
- Sympotms include local pain and fever. The pain may improve and then worsen.
- Blood cultures are positive
- Most common pathogen is staphylococcus aureus infecting a myoctic aneurysm
- Medical and surgical treatment are both required
References
- ↑ ZIMMERMAN HA, SCOTT RW, BECKER NO (1950). "Catheterization of the left side of the heart in man". Circulation. 1 (3): 357–9. PMID 15405704. Retrieved 2012-10-08. Unknown parameter
|month=ignored (help) - ↑ Mueller RL, Sanborn TA (1995). "The history of interventional cardiology: cardiac catheterization, angioplasty, and related interventions". American Heart Journal. 129 (1): 146–72. PMID 7817908. Retrieved 2012-10-08. Unknown parameter
|month=ignored (help) - ↑ Grüntzig A, Schneider HJ (1977). "[The percutaneous dilatation of chronic coronary stenoses--experiments and morphology]". Schweizerische Medizinische Wochenschrift (in German). 107 (44): 1588. PMID 918625. Unknown parameter
|month=ignored (help);|access-date=requires|url=(help) - ↑ Agostoni P, Biondi-Zoccai GG, de Benedictis ML, Rigattieri S, Turri M, Anselmi M, Vassanelli C, Zardini P, Louvard Y, Hamon M (2004). "Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures; Systematic overview and meta-analysis of randomized trials". Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 44 (2): 349–56. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.04.034. PMID 15261930. Retrieved 2012-10-08. Unknown parameter
|month=ignored (help) - ↑ Guillard N, Lefèvre, Spaulding C, Funck F, Py A, Chalet Y, Thebault B, Chauveau M, Guérin F (1997). "[Coronary angiography by left radial approach. A bi-center prospective pilot study]". Archives Des Maladies Du Coeur Et Des Vaisseaux (in French). 90 (10): 1349–55. PMID 9539834. Unknown parameter
|month=ignored (help);|access-date=requires|url=(help) - ↑ Hildick-Smith DJ, Walsh JT, Lowe MD, Shapiro LM, Petch MC (2004). "Transradial coronary angiography in patients with contraindications to the femoral approach: an analysis of 500 cases". Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions : Official Journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions. 61 (1): 60–6. doi:10.1002/ccd.10708. PMID 14696161. Retrieved 2012-10-08. Unknown parameter
|month=ignored (help) - ↑ Achenbach S, Ropers D, Kallert L, Turan N, Krähner R, Wolf T, Garlichs C, Flachskampf F, Daniel WG, Ludwig J (2008). "Transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and intervention in patients above 75 years of age". Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions : Official Journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions. 72 (5): 629–35. doi:10.1002/ccd.21696. PMID 18798237. Retrieved 2012-10-08. Unknown parameter
|month=ignored (help)
1. Cournand, A. (1975). Cardiac Catheterization. Development of the technique and its contribution to experimental medicine, and its initial application in man. Acta Med Scand Suppl , 579:1-32.
7. Hildick-Smith, DJ. et al. (2004). Transradial coronary angiography in patients with contraindications to the femoral approach: An analysis of 500 cases. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 61:60-66.
8. Achenbach, S. et al. (2008). Transradial versus Tarnsfemoral approach for Coronary Angiography and Intervention in patients above 75 years of age. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 72:629-635.