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: Vascular complications of ProGlide versus Prostar in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures: meta-analysis.
    Author: Xiang Y, Chen C, Zhao J, Ma Y, Huang B, Wu Z.
    Journal: BJS Open; 2023 Jul 10; 7(4):. PubMed ID: 37498966.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the vascular complications of ProGlide and Prostar in percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched in July 2022 for studies that compared the vascular complications of ProGlide and Prostar for percutaneous closure in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The primary outcome was major vascular complications and the secondary outcomes were minor vascular complications, types of access-site vascular complications, device failure, and additional intervention. Estimates of relative effects were pooled to generate ORs and their 95 per cent c.i. using a random-effects model. The risk of bias in non-randomized comparative studies was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions ('ROBINS-I') tool. RESULTS: Nine studies were identified and a total of 7529 patients were included. Among them, 4144 patients received ProGlide and 3385 received Prostar. The pooled data showed that the risk of major vascular complications was significantly lower with ProGlide versus Prostar (OR 0.50, 95 per cent c.i. 0.32 to 0.78). Regarding the types of vascular complications, vascular trauma was the most common complication and the risk was similar between groups (OR 1.02, 95 per cent c.i. 0.55 to 1.91). ProGlide had a lower risk of bleeding complications (OR 0.46, 95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.94), but a higher risk of ischaemia complications (OR 1.90, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 3.27). The risk of device failure was lower in the ProGlide group (OR 0.45, 95 per cent c.i. 0.21 to 0.95). Both groups had a similar risk of having additional interventions for vascular complications (OR 1.02, 95 per cent c.i. 0.75 to 1.39). The use of ProGlide was associated with a lower risk of additional surgical treatments (OR 0.52, 95 per cent c.i. 0.34 to 0.80), but a higher risk of endovascular treatments (OR 2.69, 95 per cent c.i. 1.29 to 5.63). CONCLUSION: In percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedures, ProGlide has superior safety and efficacy when compared with Prostar; it is associated with fewer major vascular complications and device failures. The vascular complications of ProGlide are more likely to be dealt with using endovascular treatments than surgical treatments.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]