ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Vascular closure with a suture retention device versus suture-mediated closure system after large bore venous access for electrophysiologic procedures.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe LockeT is a suture retention device that may be a postoperative closure option for electrophysiologic procedures requiring large-bore vascular access (LBVA) but warrants further evaluation.
objectivesWe compare the use of LockeT to a suture-mediated vascular closure device for LBVA after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO).
methodsWe performed a retrospective study of LBVA after LAAO from March 2023 to August 2024 using LockeT or Perclose ProGlide. Endpoints included access-site-related complications, time to hemostasis (TTH), time to ambulation (TTA), and same-day discharge (SDD).
resultsWe identified 208 patients (n) who underwent either LockeT (n = 86; N = 172) or Perclose (n = 122; N = 362) devices. Even after propensity score matching (LockeT: n = 86; and Perclose: n = 86), those undergoing LockeT had few differences in baseline characteristics and were associated with more frequent Amulet (62.8% vs. 16.3%) than Watchman (37.2% vs. 68.6%) LAAO implantation. The LockeT was associated with no difference in TTH (20 [interquartile range (IQR) 7.0-103.0] vs. 18.0 [IQR 8.0-66.0] min, p = 0.833) and higher TTA (4.3 [IQR 3.7-5.1] vs. 2.9 [2.5-4.1] hours, p < 0.001). There were fewer cumulative access-site complications (1.2% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.017) and device failures (0.0% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.023), and similar same-day discharges (84.9% vs. 87.2%, p = 0.66).
conclusionsThe two devices have similar hemostasis outcomes for LBVA following LAAO, but each has unique considerations. LockeT was associated with fewer access-site complications and device failures; Perclose was associated with faster TTA. Nevertheless, additional studies are still 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.