Skip to main content
Article
Outcomes after external physical compression versus vascular closure device use after peripheral vascular intervention via femoral approach
Cardiology
  • Maharaj Singh, Aurora Research Institute, Aurora Health Care
  • Daniel Ortiz, Aurora Health Care
  • Suhail Allaqaband, Aurora Health Care
  • Tanvir Bajwa, MD, Aurora Health Care
  • Mark W Mewissen, Aurora Health Care Vascular Center
Aurora Affiliations

Aurora Cardiovascular Services, Aurora Sinai/Aurora St. Luke's Medical Centers, Aurora Research Institute, Aurora Health Care Vascular Center

Publication Date
5-1-2016
Presentation Notes
Poster presented at: Aurora Scientific Day; May 25, 2016; Milwaukee, WI.
Abstract

Conclusions:

  • In the >130 centers, manual compression and VCD were used at similar rates (50.9% vs. 49.1%).
  • In unmatched analysis, ASC were significantly less frequent in every distinct VCD treatment group rather than in the group that received external physical compression alone.
  • In this study patients who received VCD after PVI via femoral approach had fewer complications and improved mortality than those who received external physical compression alone.
  • Randomized comparisons of these hemostatic strategies are needed to confirm our findings.

Document Type
Poster
Citation Information

Singh M, Ortiz D, Allaqaband S, Bajwa T, Mewissen M. Outcomes after external physical compression versus vascular closure device use after peripheral vascular intervention via femoral approach. Poster presented at: Aurora Scientific Day; May 25, 2016; Milwaukee, WI.