Trial reportJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
External Suture-Retention Device Versus Manual Compression for Venous Access-Site Closure Post-Ablation: The LockeT II Study.
Trial report in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe LockeT external suture retention device addresses the shortcomings of manual compression (MC), and other vascular closure devices-namely, prolonged immobilization, resource utilization, and costs.
objectiveIn this study, we compare the safety and effectiveness of LockeT to that of MC.
methodsWe performed a prospective, single-center study of patients (N) undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation, randomized 1:1 to MC or LockeT. Each vascular access site (n) was included for analysis. Assessments included hemostasis at two hours (HA2H), time to ambulation (TTA), time to (TTD) and same-day discharge (SDD), groin complications, and a patient comfort assessment. Cost analysis was also performed.
resultsPatients were randomized to MC (N = 49; n = 98) or LockeT (N = 52; n = 102). Procedural times (119 [IQR 91-155] vs. 106 [IQR 84-127], p = 0.104) and maximum sheath size (8.5 [IQR 8.5-11] vs. 8.5 [IQR 8.5-11], p = 0.730) were no different. Neither HA2H (95.5% vs. 99%, p = 0.129) nor SDD rates (23.5% vs. 36.0%, p = 0.06) differed. However, TTA was significantly less (5.1 [IQR 3.9-6.5] vs. 4.4 [IQR 3.4-5.3], p = 0.017) in those with LockeT. In patients with SSD, the TTD was significantly shorter (6.0 [IQR 4.8-6.5] vs. 4.6 [IQR 4.3-4.9], p < 0.001). The cumulative complications were also significantly less (11.2% vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001) with LockeT.
conclusionThe LockeT is associated with lower TTA, without major complications, and with effective hemostasis. It also limits post-procedural time for groin management. However, further evaluation of the device is needed.
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.