Purpose: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the MANTA percutaneous vascular closure device in patients undergoing percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (PEVAR) or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Materials and Methods: The SAFE MANTA Study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02908880) was a prospective, single-arm, multicenter trial in patients undergoing endovascular interventions using large-bore sheaths (transcatheter aortic valve replacement, PEVAR, or TEVAR) at 20 sites in North America. Patient selection intended to test the MANTA device in populations without morbid obesity, severe calcification, or a severely scarred femoral access area. Of the 263 patients enrolled in the primary analysis cohort, 53 (20.2%) patients (mean age 74.9±8.9 years; 41 men) underwent PEVAR (n=51) or TEVAR (n=2) procedures and form the cohort for this subgroup analysis. Per protocol a single MANTA device was deployed in all PEVAR/TEVAR cases. Results: The mean time to hemostasis in the PEVAR/TEVAR cohort was 35±91 seconds, with a median time of 19 seconds vs 24 seconds in the overall SAFE MANTA population. The MANTA device met the definition for technical success in 52 (98%) of 53 PEVAR/TEVAR cases compared with 97.7% in the overall SAFE MANTA population. One (1.9%) major complication (access-site stenosis) occurred in this subgroup compared to 14 (5.3%) events in the SAFE population. In the PEVAR/TEVAR group, 1 pseudoaneurysm was noted prior to discharge, another at 30-day follow-up, and one at 60 days. One (1.9%) of the 3 minor pseudoaneurysms was treated with ultrasound-guided compression and the other 2 required no treatment. Conclusion: The MANTA device demonstrated a short time to hemostasis and low complication rates compared with published literature results of other percutaneous closure devices. Time to hemostasis and complication rates were comparable between the PEVAR/TEVAR patients and the full SAFE MANTA study cohort. The MANTA device provides reliable closure with a single percutaneous device for PEVAR/TEVAR procedures.
BuckDBKarthausEGSodenPA, et al. Percutaneous versus femoral cutdown access for endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:16–21.
2.
KrajcerZRamaiahVGHenaoEA, et al. Perioperative outcomes from the prospective multicenter least invasive fast-track EVAR (LIFE) registry. J Endovasc Ther. 2018;25:6–13.
3.
SiracuseJJFarberAKalishJA, et al. Comparison of access type on perioperative outcomes after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2018;68:91–99.
4.
HaasPCKrajcerZDiethrichEB.Closure of large percutaneous access sites using the Prostar XL Percutaneous Vascular Surgery device. J Endovasc Surg. 1999;6:168–170.
5.
BecharaCFBarshesNRPisimisisG, et al. Predicting the learning curve and failures of total percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2013;57:72–76.
6.
GeorgiadisGSAntoniouGAPapaioakimM, et al. A meta-analysis of outcome after percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair using different size sheaths or endograft delivery systems. J Endovasc Ther. 2011;18:445–459.
7.
HaulonSHassen KhodjaRProudfootCW, et al. 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. 2011;41:201–213.
8.
JaffanAAPrinceEAHampsonCO, et al. The preclose technique in percutaneous endovascular aortic repair: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013;36:567–577.
9.
NelsonPRKracjerZKansalN, et al. A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of totally percutaneous access versus open femoral exposure for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (the PEVAR trial). J Vasc Surg. 2014;59:1181–1193.
10.
RijkeeMPStatius van EpsRGWeverJJ, et al. Predictors of failure of closure in percutaneous EVAR using the Prostar XL percutaneous vascular surgery device. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;49:45–49.
11.
UhlmannMEWalterCTaherF, et al. Successful percutaneous access for endovascular aneurysm repair is significantly cheaper than femoral cutdown in a prospective randomized trial. J Vasc Surg. 2018;68:384–391.
12.
WoodDAKrajcerZSathananthanJ, et al. Pivotal clinical study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the MANTA percutaneous vascular closure device. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:e007258.
13.
van GilsLDe JaegerePPRoubinG, et al. The MANTA vascular closure device: A novel device for large-bore vessel closure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:1195–1196.
14.
Van MieghemNMLatibAvan der HeydenJ, et al. Percutaneous plug-based arteriotomy closure device for large-bore access: a multicenter prospective study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:613–619.
15.
KappeteinAPHeadSJGenereuxP, et al. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. EuroIntervention. 2012;8:782–795.
16.
LarzonTRoosHGruberG, et al. Editor’s choice. A randomized controlled trial of the fascia suture technique compared with a suture-mediated closure device for femoral arterial closure after endovascular aortic repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;49:166–173.
17.
HörerTMMcGreevyDBilosL, et al. First use of the Manta closure device in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm patients and its potential usage for urgent endovascular procedures: a short report. JEVTM. 2018;2:30–32.
18.
Al-KhatibWKZayedMAHarrisEJ, et al. Selective use of percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair in women leads to fewer groin complications. Ann Vasc Surg. 2012;26:476-482.
19.
de SouzaLROderichGSBangaPV, et al. Outcomes of total percutaneous endovascular aortic repair for thoracic, fenestrated, and branched endografts. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:1442–1449.e3.
20.
LinSYLyuSYSuTW, et al. Predictive factors for additional ProGlide deployment in percutaneous endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;28:570–575.
21.
RedforsBWatsonBMMcAndrewT, et al. Mortality, length of stay, and cost implications of procedural bleeding after percutaneous interventions using large-bore catheters. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:798–802.
