Data comparing MANTA device with Perclose device for large bore arterial access closure is limited. We performed meta-analysis to compare safety and efficacy of the two devices in large (⩾14 Fr sheath) arteriotomy closure post-TAVR. Relevant studies were identified via PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases until June, 2022. Data was analyzed using random effect model to calculate relative odds of VARC-2 defined access-site complications and short-term (in-hospital or 30-day) mortality. A total of 12 studies (2 RCT and 10 observational studies) comprising 2339 patients were included. The odds of major vascular complications (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.51–1.92; p = 0.98); life threatening and major bleeding (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45–1.33; p = 0.35); minor vascular complications (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.63–2.99; p = 0.43); minor bleeding (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.57–1.56; p = 0.82); device failure (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49–1.11; p = 0.14); hematoma formation (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33–1.75; p = 0.52); dissection, stenosis, occlusion, or pseudoaneurysm (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.71–1.62; p = 0.73) and short-term mortality (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.55–1.84; p = 0.98) between both devices were similar. MANTA device has a similar efficacy and safety profile compared to Perclose device.
Abdel-WahabMHartungPDumpiesO, et al.; CHOICE-CLOSURE Investigators. Comparison of a pure plug-based versus a primary suture-based vascular closure device strategy for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the CHOICE-CLOSURE randomized clinical trial. Circulation2022; 145(3): 170–183.
2.
van GilsLDe JaegerePPRoubinG, et al. The MANTA vascular closure device: a novel device for large-bore vessel closure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2016; 9(11): 1195–1196.
3.
MoccettiFBrinkertMSeelosR, et al. Insights from a multidisciplinary introduction of the MANTA vascular closure device. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2019; 12(17): 1730–1736.
4.
MoriyamaNLindströmLLaineM.Propensity-matched comparison of vascular closure devices after transcatheter aortic valve replacement using MANTA versus ProGlide. EuroIntervention2019; 14(15): e1558–e1565.
5.
BiancariFRomppanenHSavontausM, et al. MANTA versus ProGlide vascular closure devices in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Int J Cardiol2018; 263: 29–31.
6.
De PalmaRSettergrenMRückA, et al. Impact of percutaneous femoral arteriotomy closure using the MANTA™ device on vascular and bleeding complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2018; 92(5): 954–961.
7.
GheorgheLLBrouwerJGutierrez-BarriosA, et al. TCT-810 outcomes after percutaneous closure of access site in transfemoral TAVR using the novel vascular closure device plug-based MANTA. J Am Coll Cardiol2019; 74(13): B793.
8.
HeitzingerGBrunnerCKoschatkoS, et al. A real world 10-year experience with vascular closure devices and large-bore access in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Front Cardiovasc Med2021; 8: 791693.
9.
HoffmannPAl-AniAvon LuederT, et al. Access site complications after transfemoral aortic valve implantation - a comparison of Manta and ProGlide. CVIR Endovasc2018; 1(1): 20.
10.
MedrandaGACaseBCZhangC, et al. Propensity-matched comparison of large-bore access closure in transcatheter aortic valve replacement using MANTA versus Perclose: a real-world experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2021; 98(3): 580–585.
11.
van WiechenMPTchétchéDOomsJF, et al. Suture- or plug-based large-bore arteriotomy closure: a pilot randomized controlled trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2021; 14(2): 149–157.
12.
AliNDospinescuCCunningtonMS, et al. A comparison of efficacy, safety and cost between MANTA™ and proglide vascular closure devices following transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Heart Res Open J2021; 8(1): 1–7.
13.
Sa MendesGOliveiraACampante TelesR, et al. Vascular closure devices in TAVI: MANTA versus ProGlide in a propensity-matched population. Eur Heart J2020; 41(Supplement_2): 2588.
14.
RedforsBWatsonBMMcAndrewT, et al. Mortality, length of stay, and cost implications of procedural bleeding after percutaneous interventions using large-bore catheters. JAMA Cardiol2017; 2(7): 798–802.
15.
LeonMBPiazzaNNikolskyE, et al. Standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation clinical trials: a consensus report from the Valve Academic Research Consortium. Eur Heart J2011; 32(2): 205–217.
16.
NaraYWatanabeYKozumaK, et al. Incidence, predictors, and mid-term outcomes of percutaneous closure failure after transfemoral aortic valve implantation using an expandable sheath (from the optimized transcatheter valvular intervention [OCEAN-TAVI] registry). Am J Cardiol2017; 119(4): 611–617.
17.
DenckerDTaudorfMLukNH, et al. Frequency and effect of access-related vascular injury and subsequent vascular intervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Am J Cardiol2016; 118(8): 1244–1250.
18.
SiontisGCMOvertchoukPCahillTJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: an updated meta-analysis. Eur Heart J2019; 40(38): 3143–3153.
19.
AbdelazizHKMegalyMDebskiM, et al. Meta-analysis comparing percutaneous to surgical access in trans-femoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol2020; 125(8): 1239–1248.
20.
VierhoutBPPolRAEl MoumniM, et al. Editor’s choice - arteriotomy closure devices in EVAR, TEVAR, and TAVR: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials and cohort studies. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2017; 54(1): 104–115.
21.
RugeHBurriMErlebachM, et al. Access site related vascular complications with third generation transcatheter heart valve systems. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2021; 97(2): 325–332.
22.
WoodDAKrajcerZSathananthanJ, et al. Pivotal clinical study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the MANTA percutaneous vascular closure device. Circ Cardiovasc Interv2019; 12(7): e007258.
DumpiesOKitamuraMMajunkeN, et al. Manta versus Perclose ProGlide vascular closure device after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: initial experience from a large European center. Cardiovasc Revasc Med2022; 37: 34–40.
