A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of MANTA vs ProGlide Vascular Closure Device and 30-Day Outcomes in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. | LitMetric

Background: Vascular complications (VCs) after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have an increased mortality risk, and vascular closure device (VCD) use is mandatory. The percutaneous MANTA VCD (Teleflex) is a novel collagen-based technology for closure of large-bore arteriotomies. We compared the MANTA VCD with the suture-based ProGlide VCD (Abbott Vascular).

Methods: A retrospective review was performed on all consecutive patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI in our center from January 1, 2015, to February 28, 2021, and 30-day outcomes were recorded. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were cardiac death, disabling stroke, and/or major VCs. Access site-related VCs were VCs related to the access site vessel from which the transcatheter valve was introduced and advanced.

Results: The MANTA VCD was used in 99 patients and the ProGlide in 224. There was 4.0% MACE in the MANTA group and 4.9% in the ProGlide group (P = .999). Overall VCs were 10.1% vs 7.6%, major VCs were 3.0% vs 2.2%, and minor VCs 7.1% vs 5.4%(P = .753). Access site-related VCs were 5.1% vs 5.8% in the (P = .999), and periprocedural vascular surgical intervention was needed in 6.1% of the MANTA group vs 2.2% of the ProGlide group (P = .099).

Conclusion: There was no significant difference in MACE, mortality, cardiovascular mortality, VCs, access site-related VCs, periprocedural vascular surgical interventions, bleeding, or transfusion rate between the 2 groups. The MANTA VCD group had more periprocedural vascular surgical interventions which did not reach statistical significance.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9632403PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.14503/THIJ-21-7650DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

manta vcd
16
vcs access
12
access site-related
12
site-related vcs
12
periprocedural vascular
12
vascular surgical
12
vcs
10
vascular closure
8
closure device
8
30-day outcomes
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!