Articles Vol. 66 No. CĐ9-NCKH 22/08/2025

1. EVALUATION OF VASCULAR CLOSURE DEVICES OUCOMES IN LARGE-BORE ENDOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS

Nguyen Do Nhan1,2
1 Thong Nhat Hospital
2 Bệnh viện Thống Nhất
Corresponding author: bsnguyendonhan@gmail.com
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v66iCD9.2667
11 Views
26 Downloads
Keywords
Vascular closure large access intervention.
Abstract

Background: In endovascular interventions, achieving an adequately sized vascular access is crucial. However, vascular closure remains challenging, carrying a risk of complications. The use of ProGlide for closing small access sites has shown promising results. But, what are the outcomes of using ProGlide for large-bore access closure?

Objectives: Evaluation of vascular closure device (ProGlide) outcomes in large - bore endovascular interventions.

Method: A cross-sectional descriptive study of 36 cases of ProGlide use for vascular closure in large-bore endovascular interventions from 1/2023 to 1/2025 at Thong Nhat Hospital.

Results: 36 cases, mean age 58.23; male 63.6%, female 36.4%. Target artery lesions requiring intervention: abdominopelvic artery 38.9%, abdominal aorta 50%. Femoral artery disease (TASC II A and B was 55.6%. Combined femoral access 36.1%. ProGlide 100% anterior closure type; operation time 3.4 minutes; hemostasis time 4.2 minutes; blood loss 10.3 ml; device success was 80.6%. Complications: intravascular thrombosis 22.3%; bleeding 16.7%; ProGlide suture rupture 5.6%. No deaths related to ProGlide device.

Conclusion: Using ProGlide gives short hemostasis time, patients recover mobility early. Applying ProGlide device to close large access vessels gives positive results, can be applied.

References
[1]
Krista Dunn, Samuel Jessula et al. Safety and effectiveness of single ProGlide vascular access in patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg, 2020 Dec, 72 (6): 1946-1951. Google Scholar
[2]
Vincent J Noori, Jens Eldrup-Jørgensen et al. A systematic review of vascular closure devices for femoral artery puncture sites. J Vasc Sur, 2018 Sep, 68 (3): 887-899. Google Scholar
[3]
Eduardo Keller Saadi, Marina Saadi et al. Totally Percutaneous Access Using Perclose ProGlide for Endovascular Treatment of Aortic Diseases. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg, 2017 Jan-Feb, 32 (1): 43-48. Google Scholar
[4]
Saibal Kar, James Hermiller et al. CRT-200.28 The use of the Perclose ProGlide Suture Mediated Closure (SMC) Device for Vein Artery Access Site Closure Up To 24F Sheaths. JACC Journals › JACC: Interventions › Archives › Vol. 11 No. 4_Supplement. Google Scholar
[5]
Thomas W Cheng, SAlik Farber et al. Access site complications are uncommon with vascular closure devices or manual compression after lower extremity revascularization. Clinical research study/lower extremity arterial disease, Volume 76, Issue 3p788-796, e2September 2022. Google Scholar
[6]
Sripal Bangalore, MHA Nipun Arora et al. Vascular Closure Device Failure: Frequency and Implications: A Propensity-Matched Analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2009 Dec, 2 (6): 549-56. Google Scholar
[7]
Gündüz Durmuş, Erdal Belen, Akif Bayyiğit, Mehmet Mustafa Can et al. Comparison of Complication and Success Rates of ProGlide Closure Device in Patients Undergoing TAVI and Endovascular Aneurysm Repair. Biomed Res Int, 2018 Aug 9, 2018: 2687862. Google Scholar
[8]
Jonas MD Gmeiner, Marie Linnemann, Julius Steffen, Clemens Scherer, Martin Orban et al. Dual ProGlide versus ProGlide and FemoSeal for vascular access haemostasis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. EuroIntervention, 2022 Nov 18, 18 (10): 812-819. Google Scholar