Advertisement

An update on the use of an arterial closure device following femoral arterial puncture in children

  • Jacob C. Smith
  • Eric J. Monroe
  • Giridhar M. Shivaram
  • Dennis W. W. Shaw
  • Kevin S. H. KooEmail author
Original Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

Background

The use of arterial closure devices in achieving femoral hemostasis has been well documented in adults but insufficiently studied in the pediatric population. An earlier study from our institution of 40 Angio-Seal devices in 38 patients concluded that the arterial closure device is safe in children with only a single minor complication. Ongoing experience with this device at our institution, however, suggests a higher rate of complication.

Objective

To retrospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Angio-Seal in a pediatric population.

Materials and methods

A retrospective analysis reviewed all cases in which the Angio-Seal was deployed from June 2011 to September 2017. Peri-procedural documentation was reviewed for pre-procedure labs, clinical effectiveness in achieving hemostasis and complications related to the use of this device. Logistic regression analysis was also used to evaluate the relationship between patient demographic, vessel size and indication for angiography, and the presence or absence of complications.

Results

During the study period, 48 additional Angio-Seal devices were deployed in 41 consecutive patients. Five patients were excluded for being older than 18 years. The mean age of the patients was 13.3 years (range: 4–18 years) with 18 patients female. The mean common femoral artery diameter was 5.98 mm in short axis diameter (range: 4–9 mm). Complications were present in 6/43 cases (14%) including 3 minor and 3 major complications that included additional procedures. No significant relationship was identified between vessel size, age and the indication for angiography, and the rate of complication on logistic regression analysis.

Conclusion

While percutaneous arterial closure devices can be efficacious for achieving hemostasis, our experience demonstrates a higher rate of complications in children, contrary to a previous report. The deployment of such devices should be performed with prejudice in this population.

Keywords

Angio-Seal Arterial access Artery Children Interventional radiology Pediatric Vascular closure device 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Das R, Ahmed K, Athanasiou T et al (2011) Arterial closure devices versus manual compression for femoral haemostasis in interventional radiological procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 34:723–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jiang J, Zou J, Ma H et al (2015) Network meta-analysis of randomized trials on the safety of vascular closure devices for femoral arterial puncture site haemostasis. Sci Rep 5:13761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koreny M, Riedmüller E, Nikfardjam M et al (2004) Arterial puncture closing devices compared with standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 291:350–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prabhu SJ, Padia SA, Valji K et al (2013) Arterial closure device to achieve hemostasis in children following percutaneous femoral arterial puncture. Pediatr Radiol 43:703–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Terumo Medical Corporation (2016) Angio-Seal VIP vascular closure device: Instructions for use. Somerset, NJ: AuthorGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khalilzadeh O, Baerlocher MO, Shyn PB et al (2017) Proposal of a new adverse event classification by the Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice Committee. J Vasc Interv Radiol 28:1432–1437.e3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shokuhfar T, Hurley MC, Al-Smadi A et al (2018) MynxGrip vascular closure device use in pediatric neurointerventional procedures. J Neurosurg Pediatr 21:466–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kestenbaum B (2009) Epidemiology and biostatistics: an introduction to clinical research, 1st edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hall TC, Habib S (2019) A novel intervention to treat failed Angio-Seal footplate deployment: two case series. Clin Med Insights Case Rep 12:1179547619828714Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Noori VJ, Eldrup-Jørgensen J (2018) A systematic review of vascular closure devices for femoral artery puncture sites. J Vasc Surg 68:887–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fokkema TM, Minnee RC, Kock GA et al (2016) Comparison of a collagen plug arterial closure device with manual compression after endovascular interventions for peripheral artery disease. J Vasc Surg 64:104–108.e1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martin JL, Pratsos A, Magargee E et al (2008) A randomized trial comparing compression, Perclose Proglide and Angio-Seal VIP for arterial closure following percutaneous coronary intervention: the CAP trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 71:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franken EA Jr, Girod D, Sequeira FW et al (1982) Femoral artery spasm in children: catheter size is the principal cause. AJR Am J Roentgenol 138:295–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alexander J, Yohannan T, Abutineh I et al (2016) Ultrasound-guided femoral arterial access in pediatric cardiac catheterizations: a prospective evaluation of the prevalence, risk factors, and mechanism for acute loss of arterial pulse. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 88:1098–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin PH, Dodson TF, Bush RL et al (2001) Surgical intervention for complications caused by femoral artery catheterization in pediatric patients. J Vasc Surg 34:1071–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Seattle Children’s HospitalUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations