Comparison of plug-based versus suture-based vascular closure for large-bore arterial access: a collaborative meta-analysis of observational and randomized studies

Abstract

Background Large-bore arteriotomies can be percutaneously closed with suture-based or plug-based vascular closure device (VCD) strategies. The efficacy of both techniques remains controversial. Aims We conducted a meta-analysis of comparative studies between both VCD strategies, focusing on the most commonly applied VCDs (MANTA and ProGlide). Methods We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google scholar for observational studies (OS) and randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing vascular closure with the MANTA-based and the ProGlide-based technique. The principal endpoint of this analysis was access-site related vascular complications. Both study types were analyzed separately. Results Access-site related vascular complications were less frequent after vascular closure with the MANTA technique in the analysis of OS (RR 0.61 [95%CI 0.43–0.89], p = 0.01, I2 = 0%), but more frequent in the analysis of RCT data (RR 1.70 [95%CI 1.16–2.51], p = 0.01, I2 = 0%). Both data sets provided no significant difference between the VCD techniques in terms of overall bleeding events (OS: RR 0.57 [95%CI 0.32–1.02], p = 0.06, I2 = 70%; and RCT: RR 1.37 [95%CI 0.82–2.28], p = 0.23, I2 = 30%). RCT data showed that endovascular stenting or vascular surgery due to VCD failure occurred more often after MANTA application (RR 3.53 [95%CI 1.07–11.33], p = 0.04, I2 = 0%). Conclusions While OS point to favorable outcomes for large-bore vascular closure with the MANTA-based technique, RCT data show that this strategy is associated with more access-site related vascular complications as well as endovascular stenting or vascular surgery due to device failure compared with the ProGlide-based technique. Graphical abstract

Revascularization Strategy in Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease

“…However, these positive signals in favor of complete revascularization could be due to selection bias. It is well-known that observational and randomized data may lead to different conclusions [20].…”