Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Manta device and Perclose device for closure of large bore arterial access

Data comparing MANTA device with Perclose device for large bore arterial access closure is limited. We performed meta-analysis to compare safety and efficacy of the two devices in large (⩾14 Fr sheath) arteriotomy closure post-TAVR. Relevant studies were identified via PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases until June, 2022. Data was analyzed using random effect model to calculate relative odds of VARC-2 defined access-site complications and short-term (in-hospital or 30-day) mortality. A total of 12 studies (2 RCT and 10 observational studies) comprising 2339 patients were included. The odds of major vascular complications (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.51-1.92; p = 0.98); life threatening and major bleeding (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45-1.33; p = 0.35); minor vascular complications (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.63-2.99; p = 0.43); minor bleeding (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.57-1.56; p = 0.82); device failure (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49-1.11; p = 0.14); hematoma formation (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33-1.75; p = 0.52); dissection, stenosis, occlusion, or pseudoaneurysm (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.71-1.62; p = 0.73) and short-term mortality (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.55-1.84; p = 0.98) between both devices were similar. MANTA device has a similar efficacy and safety profile compared to Perclose device.

Clinical outcomes of MANTA vs suture-based vascular closure devices after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: An updated meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A recently published randomized control trial showed different results with suture-based vascular closure device (VCD) than plug-based VCD in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The learning curve for MANTA device is steep, while the learning curve for suture based VCD is shallow as the devices are quite different. In this meta-analysis, we have compared suture-based (ProGlide and Prostar XL) vs plug-based VCDs (MANTA).

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of all published studies (using PubMed/Medline and Cochrane databases) reporting the clinical outcome of plug-based vs suture-based VCDs in transfemoral TAVR patients.

RESULTS

We included nine studies with a total of 2865 patients (plug-based n = 1631, suture-based n = 1234). There was no significant difference in primary outcome of all bleeding when using plug-based as opposed to suture-based VCDs (RR 1.14 [0.62-2.06] I² = 72%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of secondary outcomes between two groups including major life threatening bleeding (RR 1.16 [0.38-3.58] I² = 65%), major vascular complications (RR 0.84 [0.35-2.00] I² = 55%), minor vascular complications (RR 1.05 [0.56-1.95] I² = 42%), pseudo aneurysm (RR 1.84 [0.11-29.98] I² = 44%), stenosis-dissection (RR 0.98 [0.66-1.47] I² = 0%), VCD failure (RR 1.71 [0.96-3.04] I² = 0%), and blood transfusion (RR 1.01 [0.38-2.71], I² = 61%).

CONCLUSION

Large bore arteriotomy closure with plug-based VCD was not superior to suture-based VCDs in this transfemoral TAVR population. There was very frequent use of secondary VCDs in suture-based VCD group which is not practical when using MANTA. Additional high-powered studies are required to determine the safety and efficacy of MANTA device.

Comparison of percutaneous closure systems for large bore vascular access sites in endovascular procedures

Backgrounds

The vascular closure device (VCD) is a medical device used for achieving hemostasis of vascular access sites greater than 8 Fr. We compared complications after placement of Perclose ProGlide (Abbott Vascular, USA), a percutaneous suture-mediated closure system, with MANTA VCD (Teleflex Vascular, USA), a collagen-based closure device.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study analyzed procedures performed between 2016 and 2021. We compared the incidence of bleeding complications according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) and Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) criteria. The comparison was made between two cohorts of patients: in the first, vascular access sites were closed with a double Perclose ProGlide system, and in the second with an 18 Fr MANTA VCD.

Results

A total of 189 patients were included in the study, out of which 63% were male and 37% were female, with a median age of 79 (72-83) years. All devices were used for femoral arterial access closure. A double Perclose ProGlide was used in 91 (48%) patients, while MANTA VCD was used in 98 patients (52%). The distribution of patients by VARC-3 and BARC bleeding criteria differs between groups (p = 0.017). A significantly higher incidence of VARC 1 (14% vs. 4%; p = 0.020) and BARC 1-2 (14% vs. 4%; p = 0.020) complications in the Perclose ProGlide cohort was observed. VARC 3 (1% vs. 5%; p = 0.213) and BARC 3b (1% vs. 5%; p = 0.213) complications showed higher, but statistically non-significant rates of major bleeding complications in the MANTA VCD cohort. The need for subsequent surgical revision did not show a significant difference between the cohorts (2% vs. 6%; p = 0.281).

Conclusion

The Perclose ProGlide cohort was associated with a significantly higher rate of milder complications. MANTA VCD cohort had a higher rate of major bleeding complications, requiring more complex treatment with a potentially larger impact on quality of life.