Outcomes after external physical compression versus vascular closure device use after peripheral vascular intervention via femoral approach

Authors

Maharaj Singh, Aurora Research Institute, Advocate Aurora HealthFollow
Daniel Ortiz, Advocate Aurora HealthFollow
Suhail Allaqaband, Advocate Aurora HealthFollow
Tanvir Bajwa MD, Advocate Aurora HealthFollow
Mark W. Mewissen, Advocate Aurora Health Vascular CenterFollow

Recommended Citation

Singh M, Ortiz D, Allaqaband S, Bajwa T, Mewissen M. Outcomes after external physical compression versus vascular closure device use after peripheral vascular intervention via femoral approach. Poster presented at: Aurora Scientific Day; May 25, 2016; Milwaukee, WI.

Affiliations

Aurora Cardiovascular Services, Aurora Sinai/Aurora St. Luke's Medical Centers, Aurora Research Institute, Aurora Health Care Vascular Center

Presentation Notes

Poster presented at: Aurora Scientific Day; May 25, 2016; Milwaukee, WI.

Abstract

Conclusions:

• In the >130 centers, manual compression and VCD were used at similar rates (50.9% vs. 49.1%).
• In unmatched analysis, ASC were significantly less frequent in every distinct VCD treatment group rather than in the group that received external physical compression alone.
• In this study patients who received VCD after PVI via femoral approach had fewer complications and improved mortality than those who received external physical compression alone.
• Randomized comparisons of these hemostatic strategies are needed to confirm our findings.

Document Type

Poster