Advanced

AJNR - American Journal of Neuroradiology

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Khaghany, K. Articles by Wharton, K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Khaghany, K. Articles by Wharton, K.

American Journal of Neuroradiology 26:1420-1424, June-July 2005
© 2005 American Society of Neuroradiology

INTERVENTIONAL

Efficacy and Safety of the Perclose Closer S Device After Neurointerventional Procedures: Prospective Study and Literature Review

Kamran Khaghany^a, Firas Al-Ali^b, Thomas Spigelmoyer^c, Ron Pimentel^a and Kurt Wharton^a

^a Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Kalamazoo Center for Medical Studies, Kalamazoo, MI
^b Neurosurgery of Kalamazoo, PC
^c Neuro-Interventional Surgery, Borgess Health Alliance, Kalamazoo, MI

Address reprint requests to Firas Al-Ali, MD, Neurosurgery of Kalamazoo, P.C., Borgess North Professional Building, 1717 Shaffer Street, Suite 124, Kalamazoo, MI 49048

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of the 6F Closer S device (Perclose; Redwood City, CA) versus manual compression to close arteriotomy sites after neurointerventional procedures in both virgin vessels and those previously treated with the device.

METHODS: This single-center, multiple-operator, controlled, prospective study included 475 procedures (337 patients) with the device and 79 procedures (79 patients) with manual compression. A substantial number of patients receiving anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet medications were included. Efficacy and safety were evaluated on the basis of the rate of hemostatic success and the incidence of clinically significant complications. The literature was reviewed by using MEDLINE.

RESULTS: Overall success rates were 95% in the device group versus 96% in the manual-compression group (P = 0.78), and clinically relevant complication rates were 0.6% versus 2.5%, respectively (P = 0.15). Success rates significantly declined in vessels previously treated with the device three or more times. However, complication rates did not significantly change. Literature review yielded 12 articles reporting complication rates of 3.2–35% for the device and 2.3%–33.3% for manual compression.

CONCLUSION: The device was safe and effective for closing arteriotomy sites in patients undergoing neurointerventional procedures, including those receiving anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy or those previously treated with the device one or two times.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. P. C. Lin, B. G. Rubin, and W. D. Middleton Vascular Injury From an Arterial Closure Device J. Ultrasound Med., October 1, 2007; 26(10): 1441 - 1444. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Derham, J. F. Davies, R. Shahbazi, and S. Homer-Vanniasinkam Iatrogenic Limb Ischemia Caused by Angiography Closure Devices Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, January 1, 2007; 40(6): 492 - 494. [Abstract] [PDF]