Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39131480›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions

MANTA Versus Suture-based Closure Devices Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-analysis.

Ahmad Al-Abdouh, Waiel Abusnina, Mohammed Mhanna, Mahmoud Barbarawi, Ahmad Jabri, Anas Bizanti, Ahmed Abdel-Latif, Andrew M Goldsweig, Mohamad Alkhouli, Hady Lichaa and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Suture-based versus plug-based closure for large-bore arterial access: an individual patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Ahmad Al-AbdouhDepartment of Hospital Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Waiel AbusninaDepartment of Cardiology, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska.
Mohammed MhannaDepartment of Medicine, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio.
Mahmoud BarbarawiDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut.
Ahmad JabriDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Case Western University (Metrohealth), Cleveland, Ohio.
Anas BizantiDepartment of Medicine, Lakeland Regional Hospital, Lakeland, Florida.
Ahmed Abdel-LatifGill Heart and Vascular Institute and Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Andrew M GoldsweigDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska.
Mohamad AlkhouliDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Hady LichaaDepartment of Medical Education, University of Tennessee, Nashville, Tennessee.
Jimmy KerriganDepartment of Medical Education, University of Tennessee, Nashville, Tennessee.
Timir K PaulDepartment of Medical Education, University of Tennessee, Nashville, Tennessee.

Funding

Tracking and Evaluation CoreU54GM115458 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER · PI RIZZO, MATTHEW · 2016 to 2025
$42.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM115458
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Vascular access closure is essential in large-bore arteriotomy procedures, such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement. ​Suture-based devices are frequently used for vascular access closure. MANTA (Teleflex) is a collagen plug-based device used to achieve hemostasis with evolving efficacy and safety data. This study aimed to evaluate plug-based versus suture-based closure devices following large-bore arteriotomy procedures. Methods: We conducted a systematic review searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception through November 2021) for studies evaluating plug-based versus suture-based closure devices following large-bore arteriotomy procedures. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the length of stay, device failure, mortality, bleeding, and vascular complications between these 2 types of devices. Results: Eleven studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 9 observational studies) with a total of 3123 patients were included in this analysis. Compared with suture-based devices, plug-based devices were associated with a significant decrease in the length of stay (standardized mean difference: -0.14; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.03) and vascular closure device failure (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.91) following the procedure. There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality, major or minor bleeding, and major or minor vascular complications between plug-based and suture-based closure devices. Conclusions: Plug-based vascular closure devices were associated with a shorter length of stay and lower risk of device failure following large-bore arteriotomy procedures without differences in mortality, bleeding, or vascular complications than suture-based closure devices.

Indexed as

arteriotomyMANTAplug-basedsuture-basedvascular closure device

Identifiers

PMID39131480
PMCPMC11308113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.