Observational studyJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
Safety and Efficacy of LockeT Suture Retention Device for Large-Bore Venous Access Closure.
Observational study in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2026. 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.
- Safety and Efficacy of LockeT Suture Retention Device for Large-Bore Venous Access Closure.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectrophysiology (EP) procedures increasingly require large-bore venous access (LBVA), which is associated with a higher risk of vascular complications. While vascular closure devices (VCDs) are well established for arterial access, data on venous closure-particularly for LBVA-remain limited. The LockeT device is a suture-mediated venous closure system designed to achieve rapid hemostasis without intravascular components, but its performance in LBVA has not been well characterized.
methodsWe conducted a single-center, retrospective observational study of patients undergoing EP procedures requiring LBVA (> 14 French) between June 2023 and October 2024. Patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) or leadless pacemaker (LPM) implantation with LockeT venous closure were included. Primary endpoints were effectiveness, assessed by hemostasis at 2 h (HA2H) and time to hemostasis (TTH), and safety, assessed by major and minor vascular complications. Secondary outcomes included time to ambulation (TTA) and same-day discharge (SDD).
resultsA total of 139 patients were included (median age 76.0 years; 55.4% male). LockeT deployment was successful in 97.0% of cases. HA2H was achieved in 100% of successfully deployed cases. Median TTH was 12 s (IQR: 0.0-78.0), and median TTA was 4.1 h (IQR: 3.0-5.1). Same-day discharge occurred in 91.4% of patients. No major vascular complications were observed. Minor complications occurred in 3.6% of patients and included oozing and mild hematoma. Device failure occurred in 2.8% of cases, all during early adoption, and was managed successfully with manual compression. Outcomes did not differ by procedure type or baseline oral anticoagulation status.
conclusionsIn this single-center experience, LockeT demonstrated high procedural success, rapid hemostasis, early ambulation, and low complication rates for venous closure following EP procedures requiring LBVA. These findings support LockeT as a feasible and effective venous closure strategy in contemporary EP practice, though prospective studies with comparator groups and longer follow-up are warranted.
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.