Comparison of MANTA versus Perclose Prostyle large-bore vascular closure devices during transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BackgroundNew vascular closure devices (VCD) are being introduced for achieving hemostasis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, no safety or efficacy data have been published compared to other contemporary VCD.AimTo compare the safety and efficacy of suture-based Perclose Prostyle as compared to plug-based MANTA device.MethodsA total of 408 consecutive TAVI patients from two high volume TAVI centers were included in the present study. Patients were grouped according to VCD: Prostyle versus MANTA. Propensity score matching (PSM) and multivariable analysis were utilized to compare clinical endpoints between the two groups. The primary endpoint was any vascular complication (VC) according to VARC-3 criteria.ResultsAfter PSM, a total of 264 patients were analyzed, of them 132 in each group. Overall baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Primary end-point was similar between MANTA as compared to Prostyle (16.7% vs. 15.3% respectively, p = 0.888). The main driver for VC among MANTA group were minor vascular complications (15.2%). Conversely, minor and major VC contributed equally to the primary endpoint among Prostyle group (7.6%) (p = 0.013). No outcome predictors were identified in multivariate analysis.ConclusionsVCD for transfemoral TAVI using the new-generation Prostyle device or the MANTA device achieved comparable VARC-3 VC rates.