ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2023
Dual Suture Versus Suture and Plug Closure Devices for Large Bore Access Haemostasis During Percutaneous Access Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Percutaneous Closure Device Controlled INCRAFT Stentgraft Implantation Registry (PUCCINI).CVIR endovascular · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare a dual Proglide strategy versus a combination of one Proglide and dual Exoseal for large-bore access closure during percutaneous access endovascular aneurysm repair (pEVAR). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 97 patients who underwent pEVAR at our center between January 2021 and February 2023. The patients were divided into two groups: dual Proglide (P + P) and one Proglide with dual Exoseal (P + E). The primary outcome measures were technical success and access-related vascular complications. Technical success was defined as achieving complete hemostasis without a bailout strategy. Postprocedural follow-up for access-related vascular complications was evaluated at 30 and 60 days using computed tomography angiography and ultrasonography. Severity was graded according to the Cardiovascular Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) Classification.
resultsOverall, a dual Proglide strategy was used in 46 patients (47.4%) with 65 groins (46.4%), and a combination of one Proglide and dual Exoseal was used in 51 patients (52.6%) with 75 groins (53.6%). The baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The total technical success rate was 96.4%, and no significant differences were observed (95.4% vs. 97.3%; p = 0.870). Minor bleeding treatable through compression occurred significantly more often in the P group (CIRSE 1, 10.8% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.042). Hemostasis time, procedural time, length of stay in the hospital, closure device failure, and incidence of unplanned intervention did not differ significantly between the groups.
conclusionsA combined Proglide and Exoseal strategy is safe and effective for large-bore access closure during pEVAR and can be considered an alternative. However, it should be supported by larger prospective studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.