Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41885690›Full record

ArticleJACC. Asia2026

Single Versus Double Perclose Devices for TF-TAVR Access Closure: A Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial.

Jubo Jiang, Lihan Wang, Po Hu, Kaida Ren, Xinping Lin, QiFeng Zhu, Jiaqi Fan, Yuxin He, Yuchao Guo, Qiong Liu and 5 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JACC. Asia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06173115 (The Utilization of Single Versus Double Perclose Devices for Transfemoral Aortic Valve Replacement Access Site Closure), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT06173115 narecruitingnot on this map

The Utilization of Single Versus Double Perclose Devices for Transfemoral Aortic Valve Replacement Access Site Closure: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorSecond Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, School of MedicineRan2023 to 2026Enrolled876ConditionsSevere Aortic StenosisArmsPerclose Proglide system
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

15 authors.

Jubo JiangDepartment of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China; Heart Regeneration and Repair Key Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China.
Lihan WangDepartment of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China; Heart Regeneration and Repair Key Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China.
Po HuDepartment of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China; Heart Regeneration and Repair Key Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China.
Kaida RenDepartment of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China; Heart Regeneration and Repair Key Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China.
Xinping LinDepartment of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China; Heart Regeneration and Repair Key Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China.
QiFeng ZhuDepartment of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China; Heart Regeneration and Repair Key Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China.
Jiaqi FanDepartment of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China; Heart Regeneration and Repair Key Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China.
Yuxin HeDepartment of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China; Heart Regeneration and Repair Key Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China.
Yuchao GuoDepartment of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China; Heart Regeneration and Repair Key Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China.
Qiong LiuDepartment of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China; Heart Regeneration and Repair Key Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China.
Jie LiangDepartment of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China; Heart Regeneration and Repair Key Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China.
Huajun LiDepartment of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China; Heart Regeneration and Repair Key Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China.
Huixiang YanDepartment of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China; Heart Regeneration and Repair Key Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China.
Jian'an WangDepartment of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China; Heart Regeneration and Repair Key Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China; Transvascular Implantation Devices Research Institute, Hangzhou, China; Binjiang Institute of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. Electronic address: wangjianan111@zju.edu.cn.
Xianbao LiuDepartment of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China; Heart Regeneration and Repair Key Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China; Transvascular Implantation Devices Research Institute, Hangzhou, China; Binjiang Institute of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. Electronic address: liuxb@zju.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Double Perclose ProGlide (Abbott Vascular Devices) is widely adopted device for closing the main arterial access in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR). Previous observational studies have compared the single device vs double device approach, yielding controversial results and highlighting a gap in clinical randomized controlled trials.

objectivesThe authors sought to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of single vs double Perclose ProGlide devices in patients undergoing TF-TAVR.

methodsThe Single-Closure trial was been launched in 2024 (NCT06173115). It is an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter, noninferior, randomized controlled trial designed to compare the clinical outcomes of single vs double Perclose closure devices. Eligible participants include patients over 65 years of age with severe aortic stenosis and indicated for TF-TAVR. These patients are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the single Perclose closure group or the double Perclose closure group.

resultsThe primary endpoint of the trial is the composite of access site or access-related major and minor vascular complications during hospitalization for the index procedure, as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria.

conclusionsThis trial aims to compare the clinical outcomes of single vs double Perclose closure. Results of this trial may provide valuable insights into the optimal strategy for large-bore vascular closure.

Indexed as

Perclose ProGlidetranscatheter aortic valve replacementtransfemoralvascular complications

Identifiers

PMID41885690
PMCPMC13244112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.