Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 26, 2025
Upper-extremity Approach for Secondary Access in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Published on: August 8, 2025
Secondary Femoral Access Hemostasis During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Impact of Vascular Closure Devices
Lucia Junquera, Marina Urena, Antonio Muñoz-Garcia
1Quebec Heart and Lung Institute, Laval University, 2725 Ch Ste-Foy, Québec, QC G1V 4G5, Canada. josep.rodes@criucpq.ulaval.ca.
Background:
Vascular and bleeding complications related to secondary femoral access site are frequent in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), and their occurrence is associated to poorer outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of vascular closure devices (VCDs) for secondary femoral access hemostasis in TAVR procedures.
Methods:
This was a multicenter study including 4031 patients who underwent TAVR (mean age, 81 ± 8 years; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons [STS] score, 4.9 [interquartile range, 3.3-7.6]), and had a secondary femoral access. The 30-day clinical outcomes were analyzed according to femoral access-site hemostasis (manual compression vs VCD), and according to the type of VCD (Perclose [Abbott Cardiovascular] vs Angio-Seal [Terumo Interventional Systems]) using a propensity-matched, multivariable, logistic regression model.
Results:
Manual compression was used in 941 patients (23.3%) and VCDs were used in 3090 patients (76.7%; Perclose in 1549 patients [38.4%] and Angio-Seal in 1541 patients [38.2%]) for secondary femoral access hemostasis. Vascular complications related to secondary access site occurred in 162 patients (4%), and were more frequent in patients who underwent manual compression (7.2%) compared with VCD hemostasis (3%; adjusted P<.001). In the VCD group, the use of Angio-Seal (vs Perclose) was associated with a higher rate of vascular complications (3.7% vs 2.4%, respectively; adjusted P=.02), femoral artery pseudoaneurysm (1.3% vs 0.4%, respectively; adjusted P<.01), invasive treatment requirement for treating vascular complications (surgery: 0.8% vs 0.3%, respectively [adjusted P=.03]; and thrombin injection: 0.9% vs 0%, respectively [adjusted P<.001]).
Conclusion:
VCDs represented a safer and more effective alternative compared with manual compression for secondary femoral access-site hemostasis in patients undergoing TAVR procedures, and the Perclose VCD was associated with the lowest risk of vascular complications. Future randomized studies are warranted.
