Jornal Vascular Brasileiro
https://www.jvascbras.org/article/doi/10.1590/1677-5449.000717
Jornal Vascular Brasileiro
Original Article

Avaliação técnica do dispositivo de fechamento vascular Exoseal-Cordis®

Technical evaluation of Exoseal-Cordis® vascular closure device

Altino Ono Moraes, Rogério Yoshikazu Nabeshima, Ericsson Fernando Viotto, Marcelo Hiroshi Estevam Yoshida, Jihad Mohamad Mansour Abdallah, Patrícia Gaio

Downloads: 0
Views: 1412

Resumo

Contexto: Os dispositivos de oclusão vascular (DOV) permitem rápida remoção da bainha introdutora de um acesso arterial, reduzindo o tempo de hemostasia, a restrição do paciente ao leito e as complicações no sítio de punção. Objetivos: Avaliar a eficácia e possíveis complicações do uso de dispositivo de oclusão arterial comparado com a compressão manual. Métodos: Estudo longitudinal prospectivo randomizado com 20 pacientes no período de dezembro de 2014 a julho de 2015 em Maringá (PR). Foram divididos em dois grupos: aqueles que utilizaram DOV (grupo DOV) e aqueles submetido apenas a compressão manual (grupo CM). Realizaram-se exames de ultrassom Doppler para avaliar a espessura pele-artéria pré e pós-procedimento e verificou-se o tempo de compressão e de deambulação. Os dados foram analisados pelo Programa Statistical Analysis Software. Resultados: Um total de 60% dos pacientes eram do sexo masculino e a média de idade de ambos os grupos foi de aproximadamente 60 anos. Não houve diferença na espessura pele-artéria entre os grupos. O tempo de compressão no grupo DOV foi de 2 minutos e no grupo CM foi de 21±2,11 minutos (p = 0,0005), e o tempo para retorno de movimentos no membro inferior puncionado foi de 2,35±0,75 horas no grupo DOV e de 6 horas no grupo CM (p = 0,0005). Não houve complicações. Conclusões: Neste estudo a hemostasia por compressão manual foi tão efetiva quanto o uso de DOV, embora o tempo de compressão e o tempo para retorno às atividades sejam menores nos pacientes submetidos ao uso do dispositivo.

Palavras-chave

dispositivo de oclusão vascular; tempo de hemostasia; compressão manual.

Abstract

Background: Vascular closure devices (VCD) make it possible to rapidly remove the introducer sheath from an arterial access, thereby reducing the length of time in hemostasis, the time patients are restricted to their beds, and the number of puncture site complications. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and possible complications associated with use of an arterial occlusion device compared with manual compression. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, longitudinal study of 20 patients conducted from December 2014 to July 2015 in Maringá, PR, Brazil. They were divided into two groups: those who were treated using a VCD (VCD group) and those for whom only manual compression was used (MC group). Doppler ultrasound examination was used to determine skin-artery depth before and after the procedure and the length of time compression was maintained and the delay before mobilization were also recorded. Data were analyzed using the program Statistical Analysis Software. Results: A total of 60% of the patients were male and the mean age of both groups was approximately 60 years. There was no difference in skin-artery depth between the groups. The duration of compression in the VCD group was 2 minutes and in the MC group it was 21±2.11 minutes (p = 0.0005), while the delay before return to mobility of the lower limb that had been punctured was 2.35±0.75 hours in the VCD group and 6 hours in the MC group (p = 0.0005). There were no complications. Conclusions: In this study, hemostasis by manual compression exhibited equal efficacy to use of a VCD, but the duration of compression and delay before resumption of activity were shorter in the patients for whom the device was employed.

Keywords

vascular closure device; duration of hemostasis; manual compression

References

1. Dauerman HL, Applegate RJ, Cohen DJ. Vascular closure devices: the second decade. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(17):1617-26. PMid:17950141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.07.028.

2. Lobato AC. Cirurgia endovascular. 3rd ed. São Paulo: ICVE; 2015.

3. ExosealVascular Closure Device. Angio-seal evolution instructions for use. St. Paul, Minnesota: St. Jude Medical.

4. Stokes ME, Davis CS, Koch GG. Categorical data analysis using SAS system. 2nd ed. Cary: Statistical Analysis System Institute; 2000.

5. Wong SC, Bachinsky W, Cambier P, et al. A randomized comparison of a novel bioabsorbable vascular closure device versus manual compression in the achievement of hemostasis after percutaneous femoral procedures: the ECLIPSE (Ensure’s Vascular Closure Device Speeds Hemostasis Trial). J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2009;2(8):785-93. PMid:19695549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2009.06.006.

6. Cox T, Blair L, Huntington C, Lincourt A, Sing R, Heniford BT. 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. PMid:26680377.

7. Brito FS Jr, Magalhães MA, Nascimento TCDC, et al. Incidência e preditores contemporâneos de complicações vasculares após intervenção coronária percutânea. Rev Bras Cardiol Invasiva. 2007;15(4):394-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S2179-83972007000400014.

8. Duffin DC, Muhlestein JB, Allison SB, et al. Femoral arterial puncture management after percutaneous coronary procedures: a comparison of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between manual compression and two different vascular closure devices. J Invasive Cardiol. 2001;13(5):354-62. PMid:11385148.

9. Legrand V, Doneux P, Martinez C, Gach O, Bellekens M. Femoral access management: comparison between two different vascular closure devices after percutaneous coronary intervention. Acta Cardiol. 2005;60(5):482-8. PMid:16261778. http://dx.doi.org/10.2143/AC.60.5.2004968.

10. Martin JL, Pratsos A, Magargee E, et al. A randomized trial comparing compression, Perclose Proglide and Angio-Seal VIP for arterial closure following percutaneous coronary intervention: the CAP trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;71(1):1-5. PMid:18098171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.21333.

11. Gioppato S, Castello HJ Jr, Conforti TB, Gonçalves SLP, Morais FGS, Cantarelli MJC. Análise da relação custo-efetividade do dispositivo de oclusão vascular AngioSealTM comparado à compressão manual e/ou mecânica após intervenções endovasculares. Rev Bras Cardiol Invasiva. 2011;19(2):189-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S2179-83972011000200015.

12. Zukowski CN, Costa RJ Jr, Costa R, et al. Preditores e impacto clínico intra-hospitalar do sangramento associado à intervenção coronária percutânea. Rev Bras Cardiol Invasiva. 2010;18(3):281-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S2179-83972010000300009.

13. Bogart DB, Bogart MA, Miller JT, Farrar MW, Barr WK, Montgomery MA. Femoral artery catheterization complications: a study of 503 consecutive patients. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1995;34(1):8-13. PMid:7728861. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.1810340304.

14. Piper WD, Malenka DJ, Ryan TJ Jr, et al. Predicting vascular complications in percutaneous coronary interventions. Am Heart J. 2003;145(6):1022-9. PMid:12796758. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8703(03)00079-6.

15. Applegate RJ, Sacrinty MT, Kutcher MA, et al. Propensity score analysis of vascular complications after diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention 1998-2003. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;67(4):556-62. PMid:16532497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.20677.

16. Biancari F, D’Andrea V, Di Marco C, Savino G, Tiozzo V, Catania A. Meta-analysis of randomized trials on the efficacy of vascular closure devices after diagnostic angiography and angioplasty. Am Heart J. 2010;159(4):518-31. PMid:20362708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2009.12.027.

17. Vaitkus PT. A meta-analysis of percutaneous vascular closure devices after diagnostic catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention. J Invasive Cardiol. 2004;16(5):243-6. PMid:15152128.

18. Koreny M, Riedmüller E, Nikfardjam M, Siostrzonek P, Müllner M. Arterial puncture closing devices compared with standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;291(3):350-7. PMid:14734598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.3.350.

19. Rickli H, Unterweger M, Sütsch G, et al. Comparison of costs and safety of a suture-mediated closure device with conventional manual compression after coronary artery interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2002;57(3):297-302. PMid:12410501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.10294.

20. Carere RG, Webb JG, Buller CE, et al. Suture closure of femoral arterial puncture sites after coronary angioplasty followed by sameday discharge. Am Heart J. 2000;139(1 Pt 1):52-8. PMid:10618562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8703(00)90308-9.

21. Noguchi T, Miyazaki S, Yasuda S, et al. A randomized controlled trial of Prostar Plus for haemostasis in patients after coronary angioplasty. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2000;19(5):451-5. PMid:10828223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/ejvs.1999.1071.

Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular (SBACV)"> Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular (SBACV)">
5cd46fe40e882508137f3256 jvb Articles

J Vasc Bras

Share this page
Page Sections