Endovascular Access, Wires, Sheaths, Closure, and Complication Rescue
Endovascular access decisions before device decisions: puncture route, sheath sizing, wire-first technique, closure choice, and rescue if access or closure fails. The chapter frames femoral, brachial, radial, and pedal access so the chosen route can safely deliver the intended therapy.
Planning conference: A practical planning-room conversation: anatomy, device or operative choices, surveillance, complications, and decision boundaries.
Choose the hostsAccess route before device detail
Endovascular success begins before the sheath is opened. The first decision is not which closure device to use, but whether the chosen route can safely deliver the intended therapy and still be rescued if access, tracking, or closure fails. The modern sequence remains recognizably Seldinger: obtain a controlled puncture, pass a flexible guidewire, then advance catheters and sheaths coaxially over the wire rather than forcing hardware through an unprotected arteriotomy. That guidewire-first discipline is the foundation for all subsequent access decisions, from diagnostic angiography to large-bore structural and aortic procedures.
- Safe large-bore transfemoral access depends on preprocedural CTA planning, ultrasound-and-fluoroscopy guided common-femoral puncture, suture-mediated or plug-based preclose strategies for larger sheaths, and a defined bailout pathway for inadequate vessel diameter, calcification, or closure failure that may require endoconduit, angioplasty, additional devices, or surgical conversion.
- Trigger
- Large-bore transfemoral access is planned or has developed inadequate diameter, severe calcification, access bleeding, vessel injury, or closure failure.
- Branch / Endpoint
- Build the bailout pathway before access; escalate from adjunctive endovascular measures to surgical exposure or repair when bleeding, vessel injury, or failed closure persists.
Citation - When transfemoral access is unavailable in roughly 5-12% of TAVR candidates, decision algorithms prioritize extrathoracic alternatives (transaxillary, transcarotid, transcaval) over intrathoracic routes (transaortic, transapical) because intrathoracic approaches have been associated with up to a two-fold increase in 30-day mortality, with center-mastery and patient anatomy guiding which extrathoracic route is chosen.
- Trigger
- Transfemoral access is unsuitable because of vessel diameter, calcification, tortuosity, occlusion, prior repair, or prohibitive groin risk.
- Branch / Endpoint
- Prefer extrathoracic alternatives when anatomy and local expertise permit; reserve intrathoracic routes for selected cases at experienced centers.
Citation
The second organizing principle is transluminal intent. Dotter and Judkins showed that obstructive arterial disease could be crossed and dilated through a percutaneous route without open arteriotomy, establishing the idea that the access site is the gateway to treatment rather than the operation itself. For the trainee, this means that the access plan must match the target lesion, device profile, bailout needs, and the patient’s reserve; a route that allows device delivery but leaves no safe plan for hemostasis or rescue is not a good route.
Transfemoral common-femoral access remains the default for many peripheral, aortic, and large-bore procedures because it offers direct device support and a familiar rescue field. In elective bifurcated EVAR, randomized evidence comparing totally percutaneous femoral access with surgical cut-down found no clear difference in short-term mortality, aneurysm exclusion failure, wound infection, hematoma, or bleeding, while the percutaneous approach shortened operating time by about 21 minutes; however, the evidence base was small and low-certainty, so the result should not be generalized to every hostile, calcified, fenestrated, or branched access problem. The practical teaching is to select percutaneous EVAR access when the femoral artery can be punctured, preclosed, and imaged with confidence, and to preserve a low threshold for open exposure when anatomy makes closure failure predictable.
- Population
- Adults undergoing elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with totally percutaneous femoral access versus surgical cut-down exposure of the common femoral artery.
- Intervention
- Present percutaneous and surgical cut-down femoral access as comparable for short-term mortality, aneurysm exclusion, hematoma, and bleeding in elective bifurcated EVAR; favor percutaneous for shorter operative time when anatomy and operator experience permit, recognizing the low-certainty evidence base.
- Comparator
- Surgical cut-down femoral access
- Key result
- Cochrane review of three RCTs (318 participants; 189 percutaneous, 129 cut-down) comparing totally percutaneous versus surgical cut-down femoral access for elective bifurcated EVAR found no clear difference in short-term mortality (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.06-36.18, low certainty), aneurysm exclusion failure (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01-4.02), wound infection (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01-3.59), hematoma (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.13-6.05), or bleeding (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.29-3.64), but the percutaneous approach reduced operating time by approximately 21 minutes (MD -21.13, 95% CI -41.74 to -0.53, low certainty)
- Limitation
- Trial evidence is small (318 participants), event rates are low, confidence intervals are wide, and certainty was downgraded; PEVAR conclusions do not extrapolate cleanly to fenestrated/branched, calcified, or hostile-anatomy access.
Citation
Large-bore transfemoral access should be planned as an access operation, not as an afterthought to the index intervention. Preprocedural CTA defines vessel diameter, calcification, tortuosity, and bailout options; ultrasound and fluoroscopy then help place the puncture in the intended common-femoral segment; and preclose or plug-based closure should be selected with an explicit failure pathway. When vessel diameter is inadequate, calcification is prohibitive, or closure fails, rescue may require angioplasty, an endoconduit, additional closure devices, or surgical conversion.
Radial, distal radial, axillary, carotid, transcaval, and surgical conduit routes should be chosen for specific anatomic or clinical reasons rather than fashion. Consensus statements support radial access as a default route for many coronary procedures because it reduces access-site bleeding and shortens hospital stay, but peripheral translation must account for radial artery size, prior cannulation, sheath compatibility, and the length and support demands of the intervention. Contemporary peripheral radial consensus similarly emphasizes preprocedural assessment of radial size and ulnar collateral flow, ultrasound-guided puncture, patent hemostasis, and structured operator training.
When transfemoral access is unavailable for large-bore valve procedures, extrathoracic alternatives such as transaxillary, transcarotid, and transcaval routes are generally favored over intrathoracic routes, because intrathoracic approaches have been associated with higher early mortality. Route choice should be driven by patient anatomy and center mastery, not by the availability of a single device. Transcaval access demands CT identification of a calcium-free aortocaval target, controlled electrosurgical traversal, and nitinol occluder closure, accepting that a residual aortocaval fistula may initially persist and often thrombose. Adjunct upper-extremity access for complex fenestrated or branched EVAR should also be used selectively, because registry data associate it with higher stroke, myocardial infarction, and mortality than total transfemoral approaches using newer steerable sheaths when transfemoral anatomy permits.
Entry quality and closure quality
The quality of the puncture determines the quality of closure. A clean common-femoral entry in the intended arterial segment, obtained without posterior wall injury or venous puncture, gives every closure strategy a better chance. A Cochrane review of randomized trials found that ultrasound-guided common-femoral access improved first-pass success, shortened time to successful access by about 17 seconds, and reduced unintended venous puncture compared with landmark-guided access, although the certainty of evidence was low and major bleeding reduction was not statistically demonstrated.
Ultrasound guidance is most valuable when it changes the anatomy you actually puncture. In a prespecified randomized trial analysis, ultrasound-guided femoral access reduced major bleeding or vascular complications specifically among patients receiving vascular closure devices, while no significant benefit was observed in those managed with manual compression alone. The clinical implication is straightforward: if a device will be asked to close the arteriotomy, use imaging to give the device the best possible arteriotomy.
Closure devices are tools, not guarantees. In the 2016 Cochrane review of femoral closure devices, collagen-plug devices were associated with lower groin hematoma and pseudoaneurysm rates than manual compression, while metal-clip and suture-based devices showed no statistically significant differences from compression for hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, vascular injury requiring repair, or mortality. The evidence was limited by heterogeneity and incomplete representation of modern devices and large-bore sheaths, so the choice should be individualized to puncture quality, sheath size, anticoagulation, vessel wall morphology, and operator experience.
Antegrade access deserves the same discipline as retrograde common-femoral access. Pooled antegrade-closure data did not show a significant difference in overall or bleeding complications between common-femoral and superficial-femoral access arms, but the analysis emphasized device-level variation and heterogeneity that prevent simple device ranking. In practice, the safest antegrade plan is the one that combines imaging-confirmed entry, adequate working length, a device appropriate to the arteriotomy, and a bailout plan if hemostasis is incomplete.
For large-bore arteriotomies, the evidence does not support a universal claim that plug-based closure is superior to suture-based closure, or the reverse. In the MASH pilot randomized trial in TAVR patients, MANTA plug closure and dual ProGlide suture closure had similar 30-day access-site vascular complications and clinically relevant bleeding. Larger syntheses similarly found no significant differences between Manta collagen-plug and Perclose suture closure for major vascular complications, life-threatening or major bleeding, device failure, or 30-day mortality, and broader large-bore meta-analysis found no significant differences in device success, mortality, bleeding, vascular complications, or unplanned surgery between plug-based and suture-based devices.
- Population
- TAVR patients requiring large-bore femoral arteriotomy closure in the two-center MASH pilot randomized trial.
- Intervention
- Do not treat MANTA as proven superior to double-ProGlide for large-bore TAVR access closure on 30-day vascular-complication or clinically relevant bleeding endpoints.
- Comparator
- 4%, p=0.16), and clinically relevant access-site bleeding was also similar (9% v
- Key result
- The MASH pilot randomized trial enrolled 210 transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients at two centers and compared plug-based large-bore arteriotomy closure with MANTA against suture-based closure with two ProGlide devices. At 30 days, access-site major or minor vascular complications did not differ significantly between MANTA and ProGlide (10% vs 4%, p=0.16), and clinically relevant access-site bleeding was also similar (9% vs 6%, p=0.57), so plug-based closure was not superior on the primary safety/efficacy endpoint
- Limitation
- Pilot RCT; powered for a large absolute reduction in the composite endpoint and not definitive for smaller safety differences or non-TAVR large-bore applications.
Citation- Population
- Adults undergoing large-bore arterial access closure, predominantly for transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
- Intervention
- When selecting between Manta and Perclose for large-bore femoral arterial closure, expect comparable safety outcomes; base choice on operator training, access-site calcification, sheath size, and vessel anatomy.
- Comparator
- Perclose suture-based device
- Key result
- Meta-analysis of 12 studies (2 RCTs, 10 observational; 2,339 patients) comparing Manta collagen-plug with Perclose suture-based device for large-bore arterial closure found no significant differences in VARC-2 major vascular complications (OR 0.99), life-threatening or major bleeding (OR 0.77), device failure (OR 0.74), or 30-day mortality (OR 1.01)
- Limitation
- Device failure rates differed numerically in favor of Manta (OR 0.74) but did not reach statistical significance; local operator experience remains a dominant determinant of closure success.
Citation- Population
- Adults requiring large-bore arterial access closure, primarily for transcatheter structural heart procedures.
- Intervention
- Choose vascular closure device class (plug vs suture) based on operator familiarity, sheath size, and access-site anatomy rather than expected safety or efficacy differences; both classes show equivalent outcomes.
- Comparator
- Suture-based vascular closure devices
- Key result
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies enrolling 7,584 patients found no significant differences in device success, 30-day mortality, major or minor bleeding, major vascular complications, or need for unplanned surgery between plug-based and suture-based vascular closure devices for large-bore arterial access; plug-based devices were associated with a modest 0.2-day reduction in hospital length of stay
- Limitation
- Most included studies involved TAVR; evidence for other large-bore access contexts (e.g., EVAR, TEVAR, ECMO decannulation) is extrapolated.
Citation
Hybrid or tailored closure may be reasonable when it addresses a specific failure mode. In a randomized TAVR trial, ProGlide-plus-Angio-Seal reduced access-site hemostasis failure and the need for additional devices compared with dual ProGlide alone, while 3-month femoral imaging showed comparable vessel diameters and peak systolic velocities between groups. For standard femoral sheath sizes in electrophysiology procedures, sealant-based closure shortened time to hemostasis, ambulation, and discharge eligibility compared with manual compression, but those data should not be applied uncritically to large-bore access.
Access complication rescue
Access complications are common enough that every case should begin with a rescue plan. In the BMC2 peripheral vascular intervention registry, 3.5% of procedures had access-site complications; most were minor, but some required transfusion, thrombin injection for pseudoaneurysm, or surgical repair. Severe access-site complications were associated with markedly higher 30-day mortality than procedures without complications, making access rescue a core vascular skill rather than a secondary technical detail.
- Benchmark institutional access-site complication rates against the ~3.5% PVI registry baseline; recognize that severe access-site complications carry a four-fold short-term mortality penalty and require structured access-planning, sheath-size minimization, and selective closure-device use.
- Trigger
- Suspected or confirmed access-site complication after peripheral vascular intervention: persistent bleeding, expanding hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, distal ischemia, hypotension, or closure-device failure.
- Branch / Endpoint
- Use registry rates as a benchmark, but treat the live problem by severity: compression or thrombin injection for selected minor complications, endovascular adjuncts when anatomy allows, and prompt surgical repair for uncontrolled bleeding, limb threat, or failed closure.
Citation - Safe large-bore transfemoral access depends on preprocedural CTA planning, ultrasound-and-fluoroscopy guided common-femoral puncture, suture-mediated or plug-based preclose strategies for larger sheaths, and a defined bailout pathway for inadequate vessel diameter, calcification, or closure failure that may require endoconduit, angioplasty, additional devices, or surgical conversion.
- Trigger
- Large-bore transfemoral access is planned or has developed inadequate diameter, severe calcification, access bleeding, vessel injury, or closure failure.
- Branch / Endpoint
- Build the bailout pathway before access; escalate from adjunctive endovascular measures to surgical exposure or repair when bleeding, vessel injury, or failed closure persists.
Citation
The first rescue maneuver is recognition. Persistent bleeding after sheath removal, expanding hematoma, loss of distal perfusion, new bruit, groin pain out of proportion, hypotension, or failure of a closure device should be treated as an active access problem until proven otherwise. The evidence supports building bailout into the access strategy: large-bore transfemoral procedures should have a defined pathway for closure failure, vessel inadequacy, or calcified access, including additional closure devices, angioplasty, endoconduit, or surgical conversion when required.
Do not let a closure device delay definitive control. Closure failure after large-bore access may still be manageable percutaneously, but the threshold for conversion should fall when bleeding is brisk, hemodynamics are unstable, the artery is heavily calcified, or the puncture is outside the intended segment. Real-world comparisons of suture-mediated percutaneous closure with open surgical closure of large-bore arteriotomies found equivalent technical success and major complication rates, while percutaneous closure shortened procedure time, anesthesia exposure, hospital stay, and time to ambulation and discharge; this supports percutaneous closure when appropriate, not persistence with percutaneous maneuvers when control is lost.
Pseudoaneurysm management should be anticipated whenever femoral puncture and anticoagulation intersect. Registry data show that a subset of peripheral intervention access complications required thrombin injection, and the Cochrane closure-device review found collagen-plug closure associated with lower pseudoaneurysm rates than manual compression. These findings teach two complementary lessons: prevent pseudoaneurysm with high-quality entry and closure, and treat established pseudoaneurysm promptly with an approach matched to size, symptoms, flow, and patient stability.
Upper-extremity access has its own rescue profile. Radial access reduces bleeding in many percutaneous settings, but radial artery occlusion remains a real complication; one cohort reported an overall occlusion rate of 5.3%, higher in patients over 60 years than in younger patients. Distal radial access also has sex-specific complication signals, with registry data showing higher access-site complication rates in women than men, although major bleeding was absent and absolute rates were low. The practical response is to assess radial size and collateral flow before puncture, use ultrasound when feasible, anticoagulate and compress according to protocol, and maintain patent hemostasis rather than simply applying more pressure.
Alternative-access rescue must be rehearsed before the incision or puncture is made. Transaxillary TAVR series demonstrate that fully percutaneous distal axillary access with a femoral safety wire can be feasible in selected patients, but small cohorts should not be mistaken for universal safety. Open iliac conduit construction remains a relevant solution for hostile iliofemoral anatomy in complex endovascular aortic repair and TAVR populations, especially when anatomy predicts that percutaneous transfemoral access would fail or be unrecoverable.
Clinical integration, follow-up, and evidence boundaries
A good access plan integrates patient selection, imaging, device profile, closure method, and follow-up into one sequence. For routine percutaneous peripheral work, ultrasound-guided entry and appropriate closure can reduce avoidable puncture problems, shorten time to hemostasis in selected settings, and improve the reliability of device-based closure. For large-bore aortic or structural procedures, the same principle scales up: plan the route with CTA, confirm the puncture with imaging, select closure according to arteriotomy size and vessel morphology, and define bailout before the first wire crosses.
Evidence boundaries matter because access studies often mix different procedures, sheath sizes, devices, operators, and definitions. The ultrasound-guided common-femoral evidence base includes many coronary rather than peripheral or large-bore patients, and its major bleeding benefit was not statistically proven in the Cochrane analysis. Similarly, large-bore closure syntheses are dominated by TAVR populations, so extrapolation to EVAR, TEVAR, ECMO decannulation, or complex peripheral intervention should be explicit and cautious.
- Population
- Adults undergoing percutaneous common femoral artery access for endovascular procedures; Cochrane meta-analysis comparing real-time ultrasound guidance with anatomic landmark/palpation guidance.
- Intervention
- Adopt real-time ultrasound guidance as the default technique for percutaneous CFA access to improve first-pass success, shorten access time, and reduce inadvertent venipuncture, recognizing that this Cochrane synthesis did not show a major-bleeding reduction at low certainty.
- Comparator
- Anatomic-landmark-guided
- Key result
- Cochrane systematic review of 9 RCTs (4,447 participants) comparing ultrasound-guided versus anatomic-landmark-guided percutaneous common femoral artery access found that ultrasound guidance increased first-pass success (OR 3.35, 95% CI 2.53-4.44 across 7 trials/4,274 participants), reduced time to successful access by approximately 17 seconds (MD -17.24 s, 95% CI -27.04 to -7.43, 6 trials/3,570 participants), and reduced unintentional vein puncture (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18-0.38, 7 trials/4,178 participants); evidence certainty was rated low
- Limitation
- Most outcomes were rated low certainty due to risk-of-bias and heterogeneity (I^2 up to 96% for number of attempts); a major-bleeding benefit was not statistically demonstrated (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.32-1.13), and trial populations were predominantly coronary rather than peripheral or large-bore.
Citation- Population
- Adults requiring large-bore arterial access closure, primarily for transcatheter structural heart procedures.
- Intervention
- Choose vascular closure device class (plug vs suture) based on operator familiarity, sheath size, and access-site anatomy rather than expected safety or efficacy differences; both classes show equivalent outcomes.
- Comparator
- Suture-based vascular closure devices
- Key result
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies enrolling 7,584 patients found no significant differences in device success, 30-day mortality, major or minor bleeding, major vascular complications, or need for unplanned surgery between plug-based and suture-based vascular closure devices for large-bore arterial access; plug-based devices were associated with a modest 0.2-day reduction in hospital length of stay
- Limitation
- Most included studies involved TAVR; evidence for other large-bore access contexts (e.g., EVAR, TEVAR, ECMO decannulation) is extrapolated.
Citation- Population
- Adults undergoing elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with totally percutaneous femoral access versus surgical cut-down exposure of the common femoral artery.
- Intervention
- Present percutaneous and surgical cut-down femoral access as comparable for short-term mortality, aneurysm exclusion, hematoma, and bleeding in elective bifurcated EVAR; favor percutaneous for shorter operative time when anatomy and operator experience permit, recognizing the low-certainty evidence base.
- Comparator
- Surgical cut-down femoral access
- Key result
- Cochrane review of three RCTs (318 participants; 189 percutaneous, 129 cut-down) comparing totally percutaneous versus surgical cut-down femoral access for elective bifurcated EVAR found no clear difference in short-term mortality (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.06-36.18, low certainty), aneurysm exclusion failure (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01-4.02), wound infection (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01-3.59), hematoma (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.13-6.05), or bleeding (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.29-3.64), but the percutaneous approach reduced operating time by approximately 21 minutes (MD -21.13, 95% CI -41.74 to -0.53, low certainty)
- Limitation
- Trial evidence is small (318 participants), event rates are low, confidence intervals are wide, and certainty was downgraded; PEVAR conclusions do not extrapolate cleanly to fenestrated/branched, calcified, or hostile-anatomy access.
Citation
Follow-up should be risk-based rather than ritualized. After large-bore femoral closure, clinical assessment should focus on bleeding, hematoma, limb perfusion, femoral stenosis, infection, pseudoaneurysm, and patient mobility; imaging is most valuable when symptoms, examination, closure failure, or trial protocol demands it. Randomized TAVR closure data showing comparable 3-month femoral diameters and velocities between hybrid and dual-suture closure arms support the use of targeted vascular imaging endpoints, but they do not eliminate the need for bedside examination and early recognition of complications.
- Adults undergoing transfemoral TAVR with large-bore femoral arterial access requiring percutaneous closure.
- Action
- Consider hybrid plug-plus-suture closure strategy (e.g., ProGlide combined with Angio-Seal or FemoSeal) rather than dual suture-only closure for large-bore femoral access after TAVR to reduce primary hemostasis failure.
- Clinical point
- Randomized trial of 257 transfemoral TAVR patients found that hybrid ProGlide-plus-Angio-Seal closure reduced access-site hemostasis failure to 18.2% compared with 29.8% for dual ProGlide alone, with additional device requirement of 0.8% versus 19.0%; 3-month femoral artery imaging showed comparable vessel diameters and peak systolic velocities between groups.
- Caveat
- Trial limited to TAVR sheath sizes; access-site calcification and vessel anatomy influence closure success independent of device choice.
Citation - Adults undergoing transradial coronary angiography or PCI at a single center, mean age 58 years.
- Action
- Anticipate higher radial artery occlusion risk in older patients after transradial access; apply patent hemostasis technique and post-procedural Doppler assessment when appropriate.
- Clinical point
- Cohort study of 1,527 patients undergoing transradial coronary access (955 diagnostic angiograms, 572 PCI) found an overall radial artery occlusion rate of 5.3%, rising to 7.1% in patients over 60 years versus 3.8% in younger patients.
- Caveat
- Occlusion rates vary by sheath size, anticoagulation protocol, and compression duration; patent hemostasis reduces but does not eliminate risk.
Citation
Device selection should therefore be taught as conditional judgment. MANTA first-in-man experience helped establish the feasibility of large-bore plug closure, and later head-to-head syntheses provide device-class and device-level comparisons with suture-mediated closure, but local operator experience remains central. Smaller-bore femoral closure comparisons, including collagen-plug and clip-based device syntheses, may inform routine access practice but should not be used as proof for large-bore safety.
The trainee should finish each access timeout able to answer five questions: why this route, why this puncture site, why this sheath strategy, why this closure method, and what is the rescue plan. Contemporary evidence supports percutaneous access and closure in many settings, but the limits are clear: hostile calcification, inadequate diameter, uncertain puncture location, loss of wire access, bleeding instability, and operator unfamiliarity should push the surgeon toward imaging reassessment, alternate access, conduit, or open control rather than improvisation.
References
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.Percutaneous Plug-Based Arteriotomy Closure Device for Large-Bore Access: A Multicenter Prospective Study. JACC. Cardiovascular interventions. 2017.PubMed-indexed articleRegistry / cohort2017
Percutaneous Plug-Based Arteriotomy Closure Device for Large-Bore Access: A Multicenter Prospective Study. JACC. Cardiovascular interventions. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2016.12.277.
- 7.Meta-analysis of ProGlide versus MANTA vascular closure devices for large-bore access site management. Indian heart journal. 2022.PubMed-indexed articleMeta-analysis / systematic review2022
Meta-analysis of ProGlide versus MANTA vascular closure devices for large-bore access site management. Indian heart journal. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.ihj.2022.03.003.
- 8.Comparison of plug-based versus suture-based vascular closure for large-bore arterial access: a collaborative meta-analysis of observational and randomized studies. Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society. 2023.PubMed-indexed articleMeta-analysis / systematic review2023
Comparison of plug-based versus suture-based vascular closure for large-bore arterial access: a collaborative meta-analysis of observational and randomized studies. Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society. 2023. doi:10.1007/s00392-022-02145-5.
- 9.Comparative effectiveness and safety of Angio-Seal and StarClose vascular closure devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ. 2024.PubMed-indexed articleMeta-analysis / systematic review2024
Comparative effectiveness and safety of Angio-Seal and StarClose vascular closure devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ. 2024. doi:10.7717/peerj.18652.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.Large-bore transfemoral arterial access: techniques and troubleshooting. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2024;41(6).PubMed-indexed articleReview2024
Large-bore transfemoral arterial access: techniques and troubleshooting. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2024;41(6). doi:10.1055/s-0044-1800957. PMID:40190770.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.TRANSLUMINAL TREATMENT OF ARTERIOSCLEROTIC OBSTRUCTION. DESCRIPTION OF A NEW TECHNIC AND A PRELIMINARY REPORT OF ITS APPLICATION. 1964.PubMed-indexed article1964
TRANSLUMINAL TREATMENT OF ARTERIOSCLEROTIC OBSTRUCTION. DESCRIPTION OF A NEW TECHNIC AND A PRELIMINARY REPORT OF ITS APPLICATION. 1964. doi:10.1161/01.cir.30.5.654.
- 20.
- 21.Transradial access for coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures: Consensus statement and recommendations for India: Advancing Complex CoronariES Sciences through TransRADIAL intervention in India - ACCESS RADIAL™: Clinical consensus recommendations in collaboration with Cardiological Societ. Indian heart journal. 2018.PubMed-indexed articleClinical practice guideline2018
Transradial access for coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures: Consensus statement and recommendations for India: Advancing Complex CoronariES Sciences through TransRADIAL intervention in India - ACCESS RADIAL™: Clinical consensus recommendations in collaboration with Cardiological Societ. Indian heart journal. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.ihj.2018.03.004.
- 22.Ultrasound-guided femoral access in patients with vascular closure devices: a prespecified analysis of the randomised UNIVERSAL trial. EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2023.PubMed-indexed articleRandomized controlled trial2023
Ultrasound-guided femoral access in patients with vascular closure devices: a prespecified analysis of the randomised UNIVERSAL trial. EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2023. doi:10.4244/eij-d-22-01130.
- 23.Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Manta device and Perclose device for closure of large bore arterial access. The journal of vascular access. 2025.PubMed-indexed articleMeta-analysis / systematic review2025
Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Manta device and Perclose device for closure of large bore arterial access. The journal of vascular access. 2025. doi:10.1177/11297298231222314.
- 24.Chinese expert consensus on transradial access in percutaneous peripheral interventions. Journal of interventional medicine. 2023.PubMed-indexed articleClinical practice guideline2023
Chinese expert consensus on transradial access in percutaneous peripheral interventions. Journal of interventional medicine. 2023. doi:10.1016/j.jimed.2023.10.005.
- 25.
- 26.Dual ProGlide vs ProGlide and Angio-Seal for Femoral Access Hemostasis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Randomised Comparative Trial. The Canadian journal of cardiology. 2025.PubMed-indexed articleRandomized controlled trial2025
Dual ProGlide vs ProGlide and Angio-Seal for Femoral Access Hemostasis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Randomised Comparative Trial. The Canadian journal of cardiology. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2024.09.001.
- 27.Safety and Efficacy of a Novel Sealant-Based Vascular Closure Device Following Electrophysiology Procedures: ReliaSeal Trial. Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology. 2025.PubMed-indexed articleRandomized controlled trial2025
Safety and Efficacy of a Novel Sealant-Based Vascular Closure Device Following Electrophysiology Procedures: ReliaSeal Trial. Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology. 2025. doi:10.1111/jce.16623.
- 28.Distal Radial Access and Women: Implications for Access Site Outcomes in Coronary Procedures. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2025.PubMed-indexed article2025
Distal Radial Access and Women: Implications for Access Site Outcomes in Coronary Procedures. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2025. doi:10.1161/jaha.124.036285.
- 29.Plug- Versus Sutured-Based Vascular Closure Devices for Large Bore Arterial Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The American journal of cardiology. 2025.PubMed-indexed articleMeta-analysis / systematic review2025
Plug- Versus Sutured-Based Vascular Closure Devices for Large Bore Arterial Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The American journal of cardiology. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2025.05.030.
Educational use only
AI assists this editorial workflow. Published updates are human-reviewed before publication.
Not intended to diagnose, monitor, predict, prognose, treat, or alleviate disease.
Verify clinically relevant information against primary sources and current guidelines.