↓ Skip to main content

Vascular closure devices for femoral arterial puncture site haemostasis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Vascular closure devices for femoral arterial puncture site haemostasis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009541.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lindsay Robertson, Alina Andras, Frances Colgan, Ralph Jackson

Abstract

Vascular closure devices (VCDs) are widely used to achieve haemostasis after procedures requiring percutaneous common femoral artery (CFA) puncture. There is no consensus regarding the benefits of VCDs, including potential reduction in procedure time, length of hospital stay or time to patient ambulation. No robust evidence exists that VCDs reduce the incidence of puncture site complications compared with haemostasis achieved through extrinsic (manual or mechanical) compression. To determine the efficacy and safety of VCDs versus traditional methods of extrinsic compression in achieving haemostasis after retrograde and antegrade percutaneous arterial puncture of the CFA. The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (April 2015) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 3). Clinical trials databases were searched for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. References of articles retrieved by electronic searches were searched for additional citations. We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which people undergoing a diagnostic or interventional procedure via percutaneous CFA puncture were randomised to one type of VCD versus extrinsic compression or another type of VCD. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of trials. We resolved disagreements by discussion with the third author. We performed meta-analyses when heterogeneity (I(2)) was < 90%. The primary efficacy outcomes were time to haemostasis and time to mobilisation (mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI)). The primary safety outcome was a major adverse event (mortality and vascular injury requiring repair) (odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI). Secondary outcomes included adverse events. We included 52 studies (19,192 participants) in the review. We found studies comparing VCDs with extrinsic compression (sheath size ≤ 9 Fr), different VCDs with each other after endovascular (EVAR) and percutaneous EVAR procedures and VCDs with surgical closure after open exposure of the artery (sheath size ≥ 10 Fr). For primary outcomes, we assigned the quality of evidence according to GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria as low because of serious imprecision and for secondary outcomes as moderate for precision, consistency and directness.For time to haemostasis, studies comparing collagen-based VCDs and extrinsic compression were too heterogenous to be combined. However, both metal clip-based (MD -14.81 minutes, 95% CI -16.98 to -12.63 minutes; five studies; 1665 participants) and suture-based VCDs (MD -14.58 minutes, 95% CI -16.85 to -12.32 minutes; seven studies; 1664 participants) were associated with reduced time to haemostasis when compared with extrinsic compression.For time to mobilisation, studies comparing collagen-, metal clip- and suture-based devices with extrinsic compression were too heterogeneous to be combined. No deaths were reported in the studies comparing collagen-based, metal clip-based or suture-based VCDs with extrinsic compression. For vascular injury requiring repair, meta-analyses demonstrated that neither collagen (OR 2.81, 95% CI 0.47 to 16.79; six studies; 5731 participants) nor metal clip-based VCDs (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.03 to 7.95; three studies; 783 participants) were more effective than extrinsic compression. No cases of vascular injury required repair in the study testing suture-based VCD with extrinsic compression.Investigators reported no differences in the incidence of infection between collagen-based (OR 2.14, 95% CI 0.88 to 5.22; nine studies; 7616 participants) or suture-based VCDs (OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.22 to 12.71; three studies; 750 participants) and extrinsic compression. No cases of infection were observed in studies testing suture-based VCD versus extrinsic compression. The incidence of groin haematoma was lower with collagen-based VCDs than with extrinsic compression (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.54; 25 studies; 10,247 participants), but no difference was evident when metal clip-based (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.34; four studies; 1523 participants) or suture-based VCDs (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.02; six studies; 1350 participants) were compared with extrinsic compression. The incidence of pseudoaneurysm was lower with collagen-based devices than with extrinsic compression (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; 21 studies; 9342 participants), but no difference was noted when metal clip-based (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.89; six studies; 1966 participants) or suture-based VCDs (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.53; six studies; 1527 participants) were compared with extrinsic compression. For other adverse events, researchers reported no differences between collagen-based, clip-based or suture-based VCDs and extrinsic compression.Limited data were obtained when VCDs were compared with each other. Results of one study showed that metal clip-based VCDs were associated with shorter time to haemostasis (MD -2.24 minutes, 95% CI -2.54 to -1.94 minutes; 469 participants) and shorter time to mobilisation (MD -0.30 hours, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.01 hours; 469 participants) than suture-based devices. Few studies measured (major) adverse events, and those that did found no cases or no differences between VCDs.Percutaneous EVAR procedures revealed no differences in time to haemostasis (MD -3.20 minutes, 95% CI -10.23 to 3.83 minutes; one study; 101 participants), time to mobilisation (MD 1.00 hours, 95% CI -2.20 to 4.20 hours; one study; 101 participants) or major adverse events between PerClose and ProGlide. When compared with sutures after open exposure, VCD was associated with shorter time to haemostasis (MD -11.58 minutes, 95% CI -18.85 to -4.31 minutes; one study; 151 participants) but no difference in time to mobilisation (MD -2.50 hours, 95% CI -7.21 to 2.21 hours; one study; 151 participants) or incidence of major adverse events. For time to haemostasis, studies comparing collagen-based VCDs and extrinsic compression were too heterogeneous to be combined. However, both metal clip-based and suture-based VCDs were associated with reduced time to haemostasis when compared with extrinsic compression. For time to mobilisation, studies comparing VCDs with extrinsic compression were too heterogeneous to be combined. No difference was demonstrated in the incidence of vascular injury or mortality when VCDs were compared with extrinsic compression. No difference was demonstrated in the efficacy or safety of VCDs with different mechanisms of action. Further work is necessary to evaluate the efficacy of devices currently in use and to compare these with one other and extrinsic compression with respect to clearly defined outcome measures.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 18%
Researcher 19 18%
Unspecified 13 12%
Student > Postgraduate 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Other 32 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 56%
Unspecified 16 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Sports and Recreations 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 12 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 December 2017.
All research outputs
#6,353,223
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,035
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,087
of 267,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#129
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,994 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.