Advertisement

Manuelle Hämostase und Verschlusssysteme

  • T. Jahnke
  • U. Teichgräber

Zusammenfassung

Mit zunehmender Häufigkeit und Komplexität perkutaner Gefäßeingriffe nimmt die Bedeutung eines sicheren Managements der arteriellen Zugangswege zu. Die manuelle Kompression der Punktionsstelle gilt zwar vielerorts als Goldstandard, mit zunehmender Schleusengröße wird sie aber schwieriger und die Gefahr von Nachblutungen nimmt zu. Die Anwendung vaskulärer Gefäßverschlusssysteme (GVS) erhöht in dieser Situation die Sicherheit des arteriellen Zugangs, vereinfacht die Nachsorge und verkürzt die Immobilisationsphase. Das Kapitel gibt einen Überblick über aktuell verfügbare Gefäßverschlusssysteme und zeigt deren Vor- und Nachteile, Erfolgsraten sowie Komplikationsmöglichkeiten auf.

Literatur

  1. Ammann P, Brunner-La RoccaHP, Angehrn W et al. (2003) Procedural complications following diagnostic coronary angiography are related to the operator’s experience and the catheter size. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 59: 13–18 DOI: 10.1002/ccd.10489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Applegate RJ, Grabarczyk MA, Little WC et al. (2002) Vascular closure devices in patients treated with anticoagulation and IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors during percutaneous revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol 40: 78–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker NC, Escarcega RO, Lipinski MJ, Magalhaes MA, Koifman E, Kiramijyan S, Negi SI, Torguson R, Waksman R (2016) Active Versus Passive Anchoring Vascular Closure Devices Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Safety and Efficacy Comparative Analysis. J Interv Cardiol. Jan 5. doi: 10.1111/joic.12264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Balzer JO, Schwarz W, Thalhammer A et al. (2007) Postinterventional percutaneous closure of femoral artery access sites using the Clo-Sur PAD device: initial findings. Eur Radiol 17: 693–700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbash IM, Barbanti M, Webb J, Molina-Martin De Nicolas J, Abramowitz Y, Latib A, Nguyen C, Deuschl F, Segev A, Sideris K, Buccheri S, Simonato M, Rosa FD, Tamburino C, Jilaihawi H, Miyazaki T, Himbert D, Schofer N, Guetta V, Bleiziffer S, Tchetche D, Immè S, Makkar RR, Vahanian A, Treede H, Lange R, Colombo A, Dvir D (2015) Comparison of vascular closure devices for access site closure after transfemoral aortic valve implantation. Eur Heart J 36(47):3370–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Branzan D, Sixt S, Rastan A et al. (2009) Safety and efficacy of the StarClose vascular closure system using 7-F and 8-F sheath sizes: a consecutive single-center analysis. J Endovasc Ther 16: 475–482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Burke MN, Hermiller J, Jaff MR (2012) StarClose vascular closure system (VCS) is safe and effective in patients who ambulate early following successful femoral artery access closure--results from the RISE clinical trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 80(1):45–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiu AH, Coles SR, Tibballs J et al. (2010) The StarClose vascular closure device in antegrade and retrograde punctures: a single-center experience. J Endovasc Ther 17: 46–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chiu Wong S, Bachinsky W, Cambier P et al. for the ECLIPSE Trial Investigators (2009) A Randomized Comparison of a Novel Bioabsorbable Vascular Closure Device Versus Manual Compression in the Achievement of Hemostasis After Percutaneous Femoral Procedures The ECLIPSE (Ensure’s Vascular Closure Device Speeds Hemostasis Trial). J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2: 785–793Google Scholar
  10. Cox T, Blair L, Huntington C, Lincourt A, Sing R, Heniford BT (2015) Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Manual Compression to Vascular Closure Devices for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Arterial Procedures Surg Technol Int 27:32–44Google Scholar
  11. Doyle BJ, Godfrey MJ, Lennon RJ et al. (2007) Initial experience with the Cardiva Boomerang vascular closure device in diagnostic catheterization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 69: 203–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Grandhi R, Zhang X, Panczykowski D, Choi P, Hunnicutt CT, Jadhav AP, Ducruet AF, Jovin T, Jankowitz B (2015) Incidence of delayed angiographic femoral artery complications using the EXOSEAL vascular closure device. Interv Neuroradiol 21(3):401–6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Gray BH, Miller R, Langan EM 3rd, Joels CS, Yasin Y, Kalbaugh CA (2009) The utility of the StarClose arterial closure device in patients with peripheral arterial disease. Ann Vasc Surg 23(3):341–4. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2008.07.009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gutzeit A, van Schie B, Schoch E, Hergan K, Graf N, Binkert CA (2012) Feasibility and safety of vascular closure devices in an antegrade approach to either the common femoral artery or the superficial femoral artery. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 35(5):1036–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Haas PC, Kracjer Z, Dietrich EB (1999) Closure of large percutaneous access sites using the Prostar XL percutaneous vascular surgery device. J Endovasc Surg 6: 168–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamid T, Choudhury TR, Clarke B, Mahadevan VS (2015) Pre-closure of Large-Sized Arterial Access Sites in Adults Undergoing Transcatheter Structural Interventions. Cardiol Ther 4(1):59–63CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Haulon S, Hassen Khodja R, Proudfoot CW et al. (2011) A systematic literature review of the efficacy and safety of the Prostar XL device for the closure of large femoral arterial access sites in patients undergoing percutaneous endovascular aortic procedures. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 41: 201–213Google Scholar
  18. Hoffer EK, Bloch RD (2003) Percutaneous Arterial Closure Devices. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14: 865–885CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Jahnke T, Schäfer JP, Charalambous N et al. (2009) Total percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair with the dual 6-F Perclose-AT preclosing technique: a case-control study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20: 1292–1298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Juergens CP, Leung DY, Crozier JA et al. (2004) Patient tolerance and resource utilization associated with an arterial closure versus an external compression device after percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 63: 166–170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kamusella P, Wissgott C, Andresen R (2012) [Use of a percutaneous suture-mediated closure system after 6 - 8F transfemoral approaches: results for 2200 patients]. Rofo 184(4):311–5. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1299098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kamusella P, Wissgott C, Jahnke T, Brossmann J, Scheer F, Lüdtke CW, Andresen R (2015) Percutaneous Vascular Closure System Based on an Extravascular, Bioabsorbable Polyglycolic Plug (ExoSeal): Results from 1000 Patients. Clin Med Insights Cardiol 8(Suppl 2):49–52. doi: 10.4137/CMC.S15229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kara K, Mahabadi AA, Rothe H, Müller P, Krüger J, Neubauer H, Klein-Wiele O, Mügge A, Kahlert P, Erbel R (2014) Safety and effectiveness of a novel vascular closure device: a prospective study of the Exo Seal compared to the Angio-Seal and ProGlide. J Endovasc Ther 21(6):822–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kiesz RS, Wiernek BK, Wiernek SL et al. (2011) Cardiva Catalyst II vascular access management device in percutaneous diagnostic and interventional procedures with same-day discharge (Catalyst II trial). J Endovasc Ther 18: 46–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lardi AB, McKeever LS Wang MH et al. (1999) Use of vascular sealing devices (VasoSeal and Perclose) versus assisted manual compression (Femostop) in transcatheter coronary interventions requiring abciximab (ReoPro). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 47: 143–147Google Scholar
  26. Lee AW, Brown MP, Nelson PR et al. (2007) Total percutaneous access for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (»Preclose« technique). J Vasc Surg 45: 1095–1101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Mlekusch W, Minar E, Dick P et al. (2008) Access site management after peripheral percutaneous transluminal procedures: Neptune pad compared with conventional manual compression. Radiology 249: 1058–1063CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Nikolsky E, Mehran R, Halkin A et al. (2004) Vascular complications associated with arteriotomy closure devices in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures: A meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 44: 1200–1209Google Scholar
  30. Prayck JB, Wall TC, Longabaugh P et al. (1998) A randomized trial of vascular hemostasis techniques to reduce femoral vascular complications after coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 81: 970–976Google Scholar
  31. Reekers JA, Müller-Hülsbeck S, Libicher M et al. (2011) CIRSE vascular closure device registry. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 34: 50–53CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. RISE (nicht publiziert) A Clinical Evaluation of the StarClose™ Vascular Closure System, ClinicalTrials. gov identifier: NCT00736086Google Scholar
  33. Schulz-Schüpke S, Helde S, Gewalt S, Ibrahim T, Linhardt M, Haas K, Hoppe K, Böttiger C, Groha P, Bradaric C, Schmidt R, Bott-Flügel L, Ott I, Goedel J, Byrne RA, Schneider S, Burgdorf C, Morath T, Kufner S, Joner M, Cassese S, Hoppmann P, Hengstenberg C, Pache J, Fusaro M, Massberg S, Mehilli J, Schunkert H, Laugwitz KL, Kastrati A; Instrumental Sealing of Arterial Puncture Site-CLOSURE Device vs Manual Compression (ISAR-CLOSURE) Trial Investigators (2014) Comparison of vascular closure devices vs manual compression after femoral artery puncture: the ISAR-CLOSURE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 312(19):1981–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Schwarz T, Rastan A, Pochert V et al. (2009) Mechanical compression versus haemostatic wound dressing after femoral artery sheath removal: a prospective, randomized study. Vasa 38: 53–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. SEAL Trial Study Team (2002) Assessment of the safety and efficacy of the DUETT vascular hemostasis device: final results of the Safe and Effective Vascular Hemostasis (SEAL) trial. Am Heart J 143: 612–619Google Scholar
  36. Spiliopoulos S, Katsanos K, Karnabatidis D et al. (2011) Safety and Efficacy of the StarClose Vascular Closure Device in More Than 1000 Consecutive Peripheral Angioplasty Procedures. J Endovasc Ther 18: 435–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Torsello G et al. (2003) Endovascular suture versus cutdown for endovascular aneurysm repair: a prospective randomized pilot study. J Vasc Surg 38: 78–82Google Scholar
  38. Turi ZG (2008) An evidence-based approach to femoral arterial access and closure. Rev Cardiovasc Med 9: 7–18Google Scholar
  39. Vaitkus PT (2004) A meta-analysis of percutaneous vascular closure devices after diagnostic catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention. J Invasive Cardiol 16: 243–246Google Scholar
  40. van Dorp M, Ruyssers M, Amajoud Z, Lauwers P, Van Schil PE, Hendriks JM (2015) Preclose Percutaneous Endurant™ Endografting with the Proglide™ Device: a Safe and Feasible Combination. Acta Chir Belg 115(3):219–23Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Klinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie/NuklearmedizinFriedrich-Ebert-Krankenhaus Neumünster GmbHNeumünsterDeutschland
  2. 2.Institut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle RadiologieUniversitätsklinikum JenaJenaDeutschland

Personalised recommendations