Real-world VASCADE closure device versus manual compression use and outcomes in patients with severe common femoral artery disease

Background: The VASCADE closure device deploys an extravascular collagen plug. Its use in those with access site disease undergoing peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the VASCADE closure device compared to manual compression (MC) in patients with moderate femoral access site disease.

Methods: We performed a single-center, retrospective review of patients undergoing PVI with at least moderate access site disease. Our institutional database was linked to the Vascular Quality Initiative database, and 200 patients were selected from a 1:1 propensity-matched cohort. Data on procedural metrics and outcomes up to 30-days were abstracted.

Results: There were 103 procedures that used VASCADE and 97 used MC. Baseline variables were similar between groups. The mean age was 68.2 ± 11.2 years and 37.6% were women. Closing mean activated clotting time (ACT) was shorter in VASCADE (198 s VASCADE vs. 213 s MC; p = 0.018). There was a nonsignificant decrease in external compression device use with VASCADE (VASCADE 19.0% vs. MC 28.1%; p = 0.15). At 30-days, there was a nonsignificant reduction in hematoma with VASCADE (3.8% vs. 7.8% MC; p = 0.25) and no difference in retroperitoneal bleeding (0.5%). Pseudoaneurysm rate was similar (1.3% VASCADE vs. 1.7% MC; p = 0.79). The 30-day mortality rate was similar between the two groups and not related to the procedure (1.3% VASCADE vs. 0.9% MC; p = 0.79).

Conclusion: In patients undergoing PVI with at least moderate access site disease, safety and efficacy after using VASCADE was comparable with MC.