These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Efficacy and Safety of ProGlide Versus Prostar XL Vascular Closure Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The RISPEVA Registry.
    Author: Berti S, Bedogni F, Giordano A, Petronio AS, Iadanza A, Bartorelli AL, Reimers B, Spaccarotella C, Trani C, Attisano T, Marella Cenname A, Sardella G, Bonmassari R, Medda M, Tomai F, Tarantini G, Navarese EP, Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology‐GISE†.
    Journal: J Am Heart Assoc; 2020 Nov 03; 9(21):e018042. PubMed ID: 33103545.
    Abstract:
    Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requires large-bore access, which is associated with bleeding and vascular complications. ProGlide and Prostar XL are vascular closure devices widely used in clinical practice, but their comparative efficacy and safety in TAVR is a subject of debate, owing to conflicting results among published studies. We aimed to compare outcomes with Proglide versus Prostar XL vascular closure devices after TAVR. Methods and Results This large-scale analysis was conducted using RISPEVA, a multicenter national prospective database of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR treated with ProGlide versus Prostar XL vascular closure devices. Both multivariate and propensity score adjustments were performed. A total of 2583 patients were selected. Among them, 1361 received ProGlide and 1222 Prostar XL. The predefined primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, bleeding, and vascular complications assessed at 30 days and 1-year follow-up. At 30 days, there was a significantly greater reduction of the primary end point with ProGlide versus Prostar XL (13.8% versus 20.5%, respectively; multivariate adjusted odds ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65-0.99]; P=0.043), driven by a reduction of bleeding complications (9.1% versus 11.7%, respectively; multivariate adjusted odds ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.58-0.98]; P=0.046). Propensity score analysis confirmed the significant reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events and bleeding risk with ProGlide. No significant differences in the primary end point were found between the 2 vascular closure devices at 1 year of follow-up (multivariate adjusted hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.72-1.10]; P=0.902). Comparable results were obtained by propensity score analysis. During the procedure, compared with Prostar XL, ProGlide yielded significant higher device success (99.2% versus 97.5%, respectively; P=0.001). Conclusions ProGlide has superior efficacy as compared with Prostar XL in TAVR procedures and is associated with a greater reduction of composite adverse events at short-term, driven by lower bleeding complications. Registration Information URL: clini​caltr​ials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02713932.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]