Comparison of Percutaneous Closure to Manual Compression for Hemostasis

Radiofrequency ablation and cryoablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) using percutaneous venous access at the groin is one of the most common procedures performed by cardiac electrophysiologists. However, compared to other catheter-based interventions, patients undergoing AF ablation pose a unique set of challenges. First, AF ablation requires multiple points of transfemoral venous access with large diameter sheaths, ranging in size from 8 French gauge (F) to 14F for cryoablation procedures. Second, operators are forced to balance the competing risk of thrombosis and bleeding in these patients. In order to minimize the risk of intraprocedural thrombosis, anticoagulation with heparin with a goal anticoagulation time (ACT) \>300-350 seconds is necessary. However, operators typically require ACTs to normalize prior to removal of sheaths and manual compression, which significantly delays hemostasis and ambulation. While reversal agents are an option, there is currently clinical equipoise on their role and safety in this setting and they require additional time to exert their full effect. Lastly, patients require at least 1-2 months of therapeutic oral anticoagulation after the procedure to mitigate ongoing stroke risk. These factors culminate in longer times to hemostasis and ambulation and raise concerns for post-procedure access related complications for patients undergoing AF ablation. PerClose Proglide has recently gained FDA approval for closure of percutaneous venous access sites for catheter-based interventions and remains the only commercially available solution for access sites \>14F inner diameter. Percutaneous closure of venotomy sites may facilitate rapid hemostasis without the need for reversal of anticoagulation, potentially attenuating bleeding risk. Additionally, typical bedrest times after percutaneous closure are based on data derived from arterial closure. Prior limited data, as well as frequent anecdotal reports, have suggested that earlier ambulation may be feasible. Because the venous circulation is a lower pressure system, it is possible that earlier than standard ambulation times after PerClose is both safe and feasible. However, a rigorous prospective investigation of the PerClose Proglide device in the context of AF ablation has not been performed.