Efficacy and Safety of Ultrasound-Guided Repeat Access and Repeat Closure With an ExoSeal Vascular Closure System in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided repeat access and repeat closure with an ExoSeal vascular closure system.

Methods

A total of 123 endovascular therapy (EVT) procedures were performed in 59 patients (65 limbs) with ultrasound-guided repeat access and repeat implantation of an ExoSeal vascular closure system between January 2019 and March 2021. The procedural details and postprocedural outcomes of EVT with repeat access and use of ExoSeal (RE group) were compared with those of EVT with initial use of ExoSeal (IE group) in the same patients. In a subgroup analysis, these outcomes were also compared in early repeat (within 3 months) and late repeat (over 3 months) cases.

Results

The technical success rate of ultrasound-guided access in the RE group was 100%. The procedural success rate of EVT and deployment success rate of ExoSeal in the RE group were 93% and 94%, respectively, which were not significantly different to those in the IE group. Access site complications in the RE group occurred in 2 cases (2%), again with no significant difference with the IE group. The median puncture, procedural, and hemostasis times in the RE group were 3 [2-5], 36.5 [29-54], and 7 [5-10] min, respectively, which were not significantly longer than those in the IE group. In the RE group, early and late repeat closure was performed in 66 (54%) and 57 (46%) cases, respectively, and there were no significant differences in the technical success of ultrasound-guided access, procedural success of EVT, deployment success of ExoSeal, and access site complication rates in these cases.

Conclusions

Ultrasound-guided access facilitated higher technical success of repeat access and fewer access site complications in EVT with repeat use of ExoSeal, regardless of the interval between procedures.

Keywords

endovascular therapy vascular closure system technical success access site complication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Halliday

Bax

. The 2017 ESC Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases, in Collaboration With the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;55(3):301-302. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2018.03.004.

Bradbury

Adam

Bell

Forbes

Fowkes

, Gillespie

, et al. Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischemia of the Legs (BASIL) trial: An intention-to-treat analysis of amputation-free and overall survival in patients randomized to a bypass surgery-first or a balloon angioplasty-first revascularization strategy. J Vasc Surg. 2010;51(5 suppl l):5S-17S. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2010.01.073

Conte

Bradbury

Kolh

White

Dick

Fitridge

, et al. Global vascular guideline on management of chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019;58(1S):S1-S109. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2019.02.016.

Noori

Eldrop-Jorgensen

. A systematic review of vascular closure devices for femoral artery puncture site. J Vasc Surg. 2018;68(3):887-899. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2018.05.019.

Cox

Blair

Huntington

Lincourt

Sing

Heniford

. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing manual compression to vascular closure devices for diagnostic and therapeutic arterial procedures. Surg Technol Int. 2015;27:32-44.

Boschewitz

Anderson

Naehle

Schild

Wilhelm

Meyer

. Retrospective evaluation of safety and effectiveness of the EXOSEAL, vascular closure device for single vascular closure and closure after repeat puncture in diagnostic and interventional radiology: single center experience. J Vasc Intervent Radiol. 2013;24(5):698-702. doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2013.02.014.

Kanda

. Investigation of the freely-available easy-to-use software EZR for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48(3):452-458. doi:10.1038/bmt.2012.244.

Cragg

Lowry

Hopkins

Parker

Kay

Duddy

, et al. Safety and outcomes of ipsilateral antegrade angioplasty for femoropopliteal disease. Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;52(2):93-97. doi:10.1177/1538574417739762.

Choo

Jeong

Park

Jin

S-C

Kim

Seo

, et al. Ultrasonographic feature of vascular closure devices: initial and 6-month follow-up results. Ultrasonography. 2014;33(4):283-290. doi:10.14366/usg.14023.

10.

Han

Kwon

Park

. Korean single-center experience with femoral access closure using the ExoSeal device. World J Radiol. 2018;10(9):108-115. doi:10.4329/wjr.v10.i9.108.

11.

Maxien

Behrends

Eberhardt

Saam

Thieme

Reiser

, et al. Evaluation of the 6-F Exoseal vascular closure device in antegrade femoral artery puncture. J Endovasc Ther. 2012;19(6):836-843. doi:10.1583/JEVT-12-3922R.1.

12.

Hackl

Gary

Belaj

Hafner

Rief

Deutschmann

, et al. Exoseal for puncture site closure after antegrade procedures in peripheral arterial disease patients. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2014;20(5):426-431. doi:10.5152/dir.2014.14002.

13.

Kamusella

Wissgott

Jahnke

Brossmann

Scheer

Lüdtke

, et al. Percutaneous vascular closure system based on an extravascular, bioabsorbable polyglycolic plug (ExoSeal): results from 1000 patients. Cardiology. 2014;8(suppl 2):49-52. doi:10.4137/CMC.S15229.

14.

Ramirez

Smith

EJT

Zarkowsky

Lopez

Hicks

Schneider

, et al. Closure device use for common femoral artery antegrade access is higher risk than retrograde access. Ann Vasc Surg. 2021;S0890-S5096(21):002491-1. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2021.03.009.

15.

Fujiwara

Haramitsu

Ohshimo

Yazu

Izumi

Higashimori

et al. Appropriate hemostatis by routine use of ultrasound echo-guided transfemoral access and vascular closure devices after lower extremity percutaneous revascularization. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2017;32(3):233-240. doi:10.1007/s12928-016-0409-x.