The Use of Vascular Closure Devices for Brachial Artery Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To estimate the rates of technical success and adverse events of vascular closure devices (VCDs) in the brachial artery and compare the rates of adverse events with manual compression.

MEDLINE and Embase were searched for observational studies examining VCDs in the brachial artery. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects for the following outcomes: (a) technical success, (b) hematoma at the access site, (c) pseudoaneurysm, (d) local neurological adverse events, and (e) total number of adverse events. A pairwise meta-analysis compared VCD with manual compression for the outcomes of hematoma and the total number of adverse events.

Of 1,761 eligible records, 16 studies including 510 access sites were included. Primary procedures performed were peripheral arterial disease interventions, percutaneous coronary intervention, and endovascular thrombectomy for ischemic stroke. The technical success rate was 93% (95% CI, 87%-96%; I² = 47%). Data on the following adverse events were obtained via meta-analysis: (a) hematoma, 9% (5%-15%; I² = 54%); (b) stenosis or occlusion at access site, 3% (1%-14%; I² = 51%); (c) infection, 0% (0%-5%; I² = 0%); (d) pseudoaneurysm, 4% (1%-13%; I² = 61%); (e) local neurological adverse events, 5% (2%-13%; I² = 54%); and (f) total number of adverse events, 15% (10%-22%; I² = 51%). Angio-Seal success rate was 96% (93%-98%; I² = 0%), whereas the ExoSeal success rate was 93% (69%-99%; I² = 61%). When comparing VCD and manual compression, there was no difference in hematoma formation (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.35-1.63; I² = 0%; P = .47) or the total number of adverse events (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.35-1.58; I² = 76%; P = .45).

Despite being off-label, studies suggest that VCDs in the brachial artery have a high technical success rate. There was no significant difference in adverse events between VCDs and manual compression in the brachial artery.