Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
N/A N=50 Randomized Treatment

Comparing Perclose to Statseal With Perclose in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Arteriotomy Closure

Arterial Occlusion · Cardiovascular Diseases · Hematoma

Enrolled (actual)
50
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Feb 2025
Primary outcome: Primary: Time to Hemostasis — 5.11; 4.3 minutes

Study Design & Population

Study type
Interventional
Phase
N/A
Interventions
Perclose (Device); Statseal (Device)
Age
Adult, Older Adult · 18+ yrs
Sex
All
Sponsor
University of California, Los Angeles
Primary completion
Jul 2023

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Time to Hemostasis
5.11; 4.3
SECONDARY
Patients With Hematoma
0; 0; 0; 0; 1; 1

Summary

The purpose of this clinical study is to compare how well two different devices achieve hemostasis in patients undergoing a transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Both devices are approved by the FDA for this use, and have already been used by clinicians on patients undergoing transfemoral procedures. It is believed that the use of both devices in combination compared to the Perclose alone will shorten the time that it takes to 'seal' the artery, resulting in a shorter period of time that manual pressure will be held, shorter procedure time and less complications after the procedure.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

Delivery of a 14-16 French Transcatheter aortic valve replacement system

Exclusion Criteria

  • Use of a hemostasis method or device besides PercloseTM (Perclose may not be used in situations of heavy calcification, presence of dissection, etc).
  • Use of an anticoagulant other than unfractionated heparin or bivalirudin during the procedure.
  • Any use of glycoprotein inhibitors or cangrelor.
  • Use of sheathless guides.
  • Any anticipated need for continued anticoagulation post-catheterization, including extended bivalirudin infusion.
  • Any active treatment with oral anticoagulants continued during course of procedure.
  • Presence of arteriovenous dialysis fistula in the ipsilateral leg.
  • Any physical deformity or trauma / injury of the leg that would prevent proper placement or function of the hemostasis band.
  • Inability of the patient to personally consent for the study. (no surrogate consent)
  • Cardiogenic shock, emergent procedures (high risk myocardial infarctions), or any clinical instability as assessed by the physician performing the procedure.
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05637970). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.

Back to search