Safety and Efficacy of Arterial Closure Devices Following Antegrade Femoral Access: A Case–Control Study

PURPOSE Vascular closure device (VCD) use following antegrade femoral access may present unique challenges relative to retrograde access. We retrospectively compared safety and efficacy of these devices between antegrade and retrograde patient cohorts undergoing percutaneous intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS Over a 5-year period, a consecutive series of 107 limbs in 84 patients underwent VCD arteriotomy closure following percutaneous revascularization using an antegrade approach (VCD-A). Device deployment success rates, time to ambulation, and complication rates were compared to a contemporaneous control group of 401 limbs in 305 patients who underwent closure following retrograde access (VCD-R) during revascularization or embolization procedures. RESULTS Closure was attempted in VCD-A using 53 StarClose, 35 Perclose, and 19 Angio-Seal devices. Hemostasis (without supplemental manual compression) was achieved in 86/107 (80.4%) limbs. Closure was attempted in VCD-R using 215 StarClose, 119 Perclose, and 67 Angio-Seal devices with hemostasis in 357/401 (89.0%) limbs. Device deployment failure occurred in 7/107 (6.5%) of VCD-A and 20/401 (5.0%) of VCD-R (P = .52), independent of specific device type. Femoral pseudoaneurysm developed in 1/107 and 1/401 of VCD-A and VCD-R (P = .31), and minor hematoma developed in 3/107 and 8/401 of the VCD-A and VCD-R (P = .61). Mean time to ambulation was 204.1 minutes in VCD-A and 204.8 minutes in VCD-R (P = .97). CONCLUSION Antegrade femoral closure was associated with high rates of technical success and low complications, similar to retrograde closure. Time to ambulation was the same in both groups despite higher heparin doses in the antegrade patients.