N. prodotti: 0
Totale ordine: € 0,00
Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,632
Online ISSN 1827-191X
Madigan J. B., Ratnam L. A., Belli A. M.
Radiology Department St. Georges Hospital, London, UK
The use of arterial closure devices in achieving haemostasis following arterial puncture has become increasingly popular. This review aims to provide an overview of the currently available closure devices, with an up-to-date summary of the supporting literature. The various devices have their advantages and disadvantages as well as differing mechanisms of actions. Technical aspects of deployment affect the learning curve and ease of use of individual devices. Some complications that arise are device specific where others are related to arterial punctures in general. When choosing a device, all these factors should be taken into account as well as differing clinical requirements and priorities. Most studies of arterial closure devices that are currently in use conclude that the safety profile of closure devices is comparable to manual compression. The literature does not show superiority of any particular device. Caution is advised in extrapolating evidence based on differing patient groups, as many of the study populations are heterogeneous. As physicians become more familiar with the use of closure devices, off-label applications of some devices have emerged, some of which need further evaluation. The ideal closure device should reduce complication rates compared to manual compression, be easy to use with a short learning curve, and have a high rate of deployment success. It should also be usable across a wide range of sheath sizes, not leave any permanent foreign body behind, reduce time to haemostasis and ambulation, allow immediate repuncture, improve patient comfort and be cost effective. In spite of the wide range of devices currently available there remains room for improvement.