ArticleJournal of the Saudi Heart Association2026
From Compression to Closure: Efficacy and Safety of Vascular Closure Devices (VCD) Versus Manual Compression: A Comparative Analysis of Hemostatic Strategies of Obtura, Angioseal, and ProGlide VCD.
Article in Journal of the Saudi Heart Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Use of vascular closure devices (VCDs) for femoral artery puncture site hemostasis has increased but their safety and efficacy have remained unclear. This study was designed to compare safety and efficacy of Obtura, Angioseal, and Proglide VCD to manual compression (MC) and also between for femoral artery haemostasis. Methods: This was prospective, randomized controlled study where patients were randomly assigned on 1:1:1:1 basis. Primary endpoints were time to hemostasis (TTH) and ambulation time (AT) while secondary endpoints were deployment success, device related adverse events and technical success rate. ANOVA and Tukey HSD was conducted to draw significant difference between individual strategies. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Total of 1000 patients (250 in each arm) who underwent transfemoral intervention at LPS Institute of Cardiology, Kanpur, India between January 2025 and March 2025 were evaluated. Sheath size, common femoral artery diameter and device size did not differ significantly across all the groups. Mean TTH was shortest for Angioseal (1.30 min) followed by Obtura (2.58 min), Perclose (3.97 min), and MC (17.61 min). Similarly, mean AT was shortest for Angio-Seal (123.06 min) followed by Perclose ProGlide (162.56 min), Obtura (185.42 min) and MC (743.23 min). Technical success in Angio-Seal, Obtura and Perclose ProGlide were 99.1%, 97.4% and 94.6% respectively. No access site complications (re-bleeding, infection, arteriovenous fistula, and transient access site nerve injury) were noted. There were 2(0.8%), 5(2%), 7(3.2%) and 12 (4.8%) cases of haematoma in Angio-Seal, Obtura, Perclose ProGlide and MC arm respectively. There were 2(0.8%), 2(0.8%), and 4 (1.6%) case of arterial pseudoaneurysm Obtura, Perclose ProGlide and MC arm respectively while none in Angio-Seal arm. Conclusion: Vascular closure devices showed significantly faster haemostasis and shorter ambulation time compared to manual compression highlighting their clinical efficiency and Angio-Seal was superior safety and efficacy over Obtura and Perclose ProGlide.
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.