A randomized comparison of a percutaneous suture device versus manual compression for femoral artery hemostasis after PTCA.
BACKGROUND
The prolonged bed rest following femoral sheath removal after PTCA is a source of discomfort for the patient. We designed a randomized study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an arterial suture device developed to percutaneously close the vascular access site after PTCA, allowing immediate sheath removal and early ambulation, compared to manual compression.


METHODS
After successful PTCA, patients were randomized to manual compression or immediate femoral percutaneous closure. Exclusion criteria were arteritis, age > 80 years and > 3 previous femoral punctures on the same side. The two-needle device was used for the 6F sheath removal and the four-needle device for the 8F sheath. Ambulation was allowed 4 hours after the arterial suture.


RESULTS
One hundred and sixty-seven patients (59 +/- 10 years, 81% males) were randomized to suture device (n = 91) or to manual compression (n = 76). The two groups were similar in terms of age, sex, size of sheath, number of patients with stent implantation (62 vs 61%), procedural anticoagulation. Procedural duration was 8 +/- 6 minutes with percutaneous suture versus 25 +/- 11 minutes with manual compression (P < 0.0001). Procedural success with percutaneous suture was 93% whereas six technical failures were treated with prolonged manual compression. Nonsurgical hematoma occurred in five patients (5%) with the suture device and in two (3%) with manual compression with no need for blood transfusion (P = NS). Uneventful blood oozing occurred in 11 patients (12%) with percutaneous suture and in only 2 (3%) with manual compression (P < 0.06). The tolerance of the hemostasis procedure and the length of post-procedure hospital stay (40 +/- 32 hours) were similar in the two groups.


CONCLUSIONS
Percutaneous suture of the femoral artery, allows immediate closure of femoral puncture sites after PTCA, without increasing the incidence of vascular complications. The use of this device should allow earlier discharge and subsequent cost savings.
Tron
Christophe
C
Service de Cardiologie, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire, Hôpital Charles-Nicolle, 1 rue de Germont, 76000 Rouen, France. Christophe.Tron@chu-rouen.fr
Koning
René
R
Eltchaninoff
Hélène
H
Douillet
Rémy
R
Chassaing
Stéphan
S
Sanchez-Giron
Carlos
C
Cribier
Alain
A
D000368:Aged; D015906:Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary / Q000295:instrumentation*; D001458:Bandages; D004869:Equipment Safety; D005260:Female; D005263:Femoral Artery / Q000601:surgery*; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006406:Hematoma / Q000209:etiology; D006488:Hemostasis, Surgical / Q000295:instrumentation*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017202:Myocardial Ischemia / Q000150:complications / Q000628:therapy; D010146:Pain / Q000209:etiology; D013537:Sutures; D016896:Treatment Outcome