Авторы
Чернявин М.П. 1, Молохоев Е.Б.1, Казанцев А.Н.2, Белов Ю.В.3
1 ФГБУ «Клиническая больница №1» Управления делами Президента РФ, Москва
2 ОГБУЗ Костромская областная клиническая больница им. Королева Е.И., Кострома
3 ФГБНУ «Российский научный центр хирургии им. акад. Б.В. Петровского», Москва
Аннотация
В настоящее время эндоваскулярные вмешательства практически заменили большинство открытых операций. Их выбор часто связан с миниинвазивностью, высокоэффективностью, меньшим количеством осложнений. Однако остается актуальной проблема осуществления гемостаза в месте пункции сосуда. Появление и внедрение в клиническую практику большого количества окклюзирующих пункционный дефект устройств привело к необходимости оценки безопасности и эффективности их использования в различных группах пациентов.
Ключевые слова: эндоваскулярное вмешательство, пункция бедренной артерии, аппаратный гемостаз, ушивающие устройства.
Список литературы
1. Patel MR, Jneid H, Derdeyn CP, et al. American Heart Association Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, and Stroke Council. Arteriotomy closure devices for cardiovascular procedures: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010; 122(18): 1882-93. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181f9b345.
2. Doyle BJ, Rihal CS, Gastineau DA, Holmes DR Jr. Bleeding, blood transfusion, and increased mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention: implications for contemporary practice. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 53(22): 2019-27. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.12.073. PMID: 19477350.
3. Looby S, Keeling AN, McErlean A, et al. Efficacy and safety of the Angioseal vascular closure device post antegrade puncture. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2008; 31: 558-62.
4. Martin JL, Pratsos A, Magargee E, et al. A randomized trial comparing compression, Perclose Proglide and Angio-Seal VIP for arterial closure following percutaneous coronary intervention: the CAP trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008; 71(1): 1-5. doi: 10.1002/ccd.21333.
5. Koreny M, Riedmüller E, Nikfardjam M, et al. Arterial puncture closing devices compared with standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004; 291(3): 350-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.3.350.
6. Biancari F, D’Andrea V, Di Marco C, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized trials on the efficacy of vascular closure devices after diagnostic angiography and angioplasty. Am Heart J. 2010; 159(4): 518-31. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj. 2009.12.027.
7. Jiang J, Zou J, Ma H, et al. Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials on the Safety of Vascular Closure Devices for Femoral Arterial Puncture Site Haemostasis. Sci Rep. 2015; 5: 13761. doi: 10.1038/srep13761.
8. Noori VJ, Eldrup-Jørgensen J. A systematic review of vascular closure devices for femoral artery puncture sites. J Vasc Surg. 2018; 68(3): 887-899. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.05.019.
9. Dauerman HL, Applegate RJ, Cohen DJ. Vascular closure devices: the second decade. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 50(17): 1617-26. doi: 10.1016/ j.jacc.2007.07.028.
10. Pang N, Gao J, Zhang B, et al. Vascular Closure Devices versus Manual Compression in Cardiac Interventional Procedures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cardiovasc Ther. 2022; 2022: 569188. doi: 10.1155/ 2022/8569188.
11. Robertson L, Andras A, Colgan F, Jackson R. Vascular closure devices for femoral arterial puncture site haemostasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 3: CD009541. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009541.pub2.
12. Sekhar A, Sutton BS, Raheja P, et al. Femoral arterial closure using ProGlide® is more efficacious and cost-effective when ambulating early following cardiac catheterization. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2016; 13: 6-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2016.09.002.
13. Lucatelli P, Fanelli F, Cannavale A, et al. Angioseal VIP® vs. StarClose SE® closure devices: a comparative analysis in non-cardiological procedures. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2017; 58(1): 80-86. doi: 10.23736/S0021-9509. 16.07654-0.
14. Barrette LX, Vance AZ, Mantell MP, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Arterial Closure Devices Following Antegrade Femoral Access: A Case-Control Study. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2020; 54(7): 612-617. doi: 10.1177/1538574420941298.
15. Duffin DC, Muhlestein JB, Allisson SB, et al. Femoral arterial puncture management after percutaneous coronary procedures: a comparison of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between manual compression and two different vascular closure devices. J Invasive Cardiol. 2001; 13(5): 354-362.
16. Tavris DR, Dey S, Albrecht-Gallauresi B, et al. Risk of local adverse events following cardiac catheterization by hemostasis device use - phase II. J Invasive Cardiol. 2005; 17(12): 644-650.
17. Gewalt SM, Helde SM, Ibrahim T, et al. Comparison of Vascular Closure Devices Versus Manual Compression After Femoral Artery Puncture in Women. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 11(8): e006074. doi: 10.1161/ CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.006074.
18. Cianci C, Kowal RC, Feghali G, Hohmann S, Stoler RC, Choi JW. Critical lower limb ischemia from an embolized Angio-Seal closure device. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2013; 26(4): 398-400. doi: 10.1080/08998280. 2013.11929017.
19. Nikolsky E, Mehran R, Halkin A, et al. Vascular complications associated with arteriotomy closure devices in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 44(6): 1200-1209. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.06.048.
20. Resnic FS, Blake GJ, Ohno-Machado L, et al. Vascular closure devices and the risk of vascular complications after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients receiving glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors. Am J Cardiol. 2001; 88(5): 493-496. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(01)01725-8.
21. Arora N, Matheny ME, Sepke C, Resnic FS. A propensity analysis of the risk of vascular complications after cardiac catheterization procedures with the use of vascular closure devices. Am Heart J. 2007; 153(4): 606-611. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2006.12.014.
22. Prouse A, Gunzburger E, Yang F, et al. Contemporary Use and Outcomes of Arterial Closure Devices After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020; 9(4): e015223. doi: 10.1161/JAHA. 119.015223.
23. Tavris DR, Gallauresi BA, Dey S, et al. Risk of local adverse events by gender following cardiac catheterization. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007; 16(2): 125-131. doi: 10.1002/pds.1307.
24. Turi ZG. Optimizing vascular access: routine femoral angiography keeps the vascular complication away. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2005; 65(2): 203-204. doi: 10.1002/ccd.20412.
25. Schnyder G, Sawhney N, Whisenant B, et al. Common femoral artery anatomy is influenced by demographics and comorbidity: implications for cardiac and peripheral invasive studies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2001; 53(3): 289-295. doi: 10.1002/ccd.1169.
26. Sherev DA, Shaw RE, Brent BN. Angiographic predictors of femoral access site complications: implication for planned percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2005; 65(2): 196-202. doi: 10.1002/ccd.20354.
27. Ellis SG, Bhatt D, Kapadia S, et al. Correlates and outcomes of retroperitoneal hemorrhage complicating percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006; 67(4): 541-545. doi: 10.1002/ccd.20671.
28. Farouque HM, Tremmel JA, Raissi Shabari F, et al. Risk factors for the development of retroperitoneal hematoma after percutaneous coronary intervention in the era of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and vascular closure devices. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 45(3): 363-368. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.10.042.
29. Hermiller J, Simonton C, Hinohara T, et al. Clinical experience with a circumferential clip-based vascular closure device in diagnostic catheterization. J Invasive Cardiol. 2005; 17(10): 504-510.
30. Saw J, Bhatt DL, Moliterno DJ, et al. The influence of peripheral arterial disease on outcomes: a pooled analysis of mortality in eight large randomized percutaneous coronary intervention trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48(8): 1567-1572. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.03.067.
31. Applegate RJ, Rankin KM, Little WC, et al. Restick following initial Angioseal use. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003; 58(2): 181-184. doi: 10.1002/ccd.10419.
32. Fowler SJ, Nguyen A, Kern M. Trapping of vascular clip closure device in previously accessed femoral puncture site. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007; 70(1): 62-64. doi: 10.1002/ccd.21105.
33. Gargiulo NJ 3rd, Veith FJ, Ohki T, et al. Histologic and duplex comparison of the perclose and angio-seal percutaneous closure devices. Vascular. 2007; 15(1): 24-29. doi: 10.2310/6670.2007.00004.
34. Resnic FS, Arora N, Matheny M, Reynolds MR. A cost-minimization analysis of the angio-seal vascular closure device following percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2007; 99(6): 766-770. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.10.032.
35. Rickli H, Unterweger M, Sütsch G, et al. Comparison of costs and safety of a suture-mediated closure device with conventional manual compression after coronary artery interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2002; 57(3): 297-302. doi: 10.1002/ccd.10294.
36. Kim M, Chu A, Khan Y, Malik S. Predicting and preventing vascular complications following percutaneous coronary intervention in women. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2015; 13(2): 163-172. doi: 10.1586/14779072.2015.995635.
37. Cox T, Blair L, Huntington C, et al. Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Manual Compression to Vascular Closure Devices for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Arterial Procedures. Surg Technol Int. 2015; 27: 32-44.
38. Hermiller JB, Simonton C, Hinohara T, et al. The StarClose Vascular Closure System: interventional results from the CLIP study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006; 68(5): 677-683. doi: 10.1002/ccd.20922.
39. Del Prete A, Della Rocca DG, Calcagno S, et al. Perclose ProglideTM for vascular closure. Future Cardiol. 2021; 17(2): 269-282. doi: 10.2217/fca-2020-0065.
40. Vinayakumar D, Kayakkal S, Rajasekharan S, et al. 24h and 30 day outcome of Perclose Proglide suture mediated vascular closure device: An Indian experience. Indian Heart J. 2017; 69(1): 37-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2016.06.008.
41. Бокерия Л.А., Мусалов А.Ю. Применение устройств для закрытия пункционных отверстий после эндоваскулярных вмешательств // Бюллетень НЦССХ им. А.Н. Бакулева РАМН. Сердечно-сосудистые заболевания. — 2016. — Т.17. — №1. — С.32-38.
42. Eggebrecht H, Naber C, Woertgen U, et al. Percutaneous suture-mediated closure of femoral access sites deployed through the procedure sheath: initial clinical experience with a novel vascular closure device. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003; 58(3): 313-321. doi: 10.1002/ccd.10472.
43. Maniotis C, Andreou C, Karalis I, et al. A systematic review on the safety of Prostar XL versus ProGlide after TAVR and EVAR. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2017; 18(2): 145-150. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2016.11.004.
44. Eggebrecht H, Haude M, Woertgen U, et al. Systematic use of a collagen-based vascular closure device immediately after cardiac catheterization procedures in 1,317 consecutive patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2002; 57(4): 486-495. doi: 10.1002/ccd.10254.
45. O’Sullivan GJ, Buckenham TM, Belli AM. The use of the angio-seal haemostatic puncture closure device in high risk patients. Clin Radiol. 1999; 54(1): 51-55. doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(99)91240-0.
46. Kensey KR. Puncture site hemostasis. J Invasive Cardiol. 1994; 6(8): 273-276.
47. Modi S, Gadvi R, Babu S. Initial experience with AngiosealTM: Safety and efficacy of the endovascular closure device. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2013; 23(2): 134-138. doi: 10.4103/0971-3026.116566.
