Comparison of plug-based versus suture-based vascular closure for large-bore arterial access: a collaborative meta-analysis of observational and randomized studies

Background: Large-bore arteriotomies can be percutaneously closed with suture-based or plug-based vascular closure device (VCD) strategies. The efficacy of both techniques remains controversial.

Aims: We conducted a meta-analysis of comparative studies between both VCD strategies, focusing on the most commonly applied VCDs (MANTA and ProGlide).

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google scholar for observational studies (OS) and randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing vascular closure with the MANTA-based and the ProGlide-based technique. The principal endpoint of this analysis was access-site related vascular complications. Both study types were analyzed separately.

Results: Access-site related vascular complications were less frequent after vascular closure with the MANTA technique in the analysis of OS (RR 0.61 [95%CI 0.43-0.89], p = 0.01, I² = 0%), but more frequent in the analysis of RCT data (RR 1.70 [95%CI 1.16-2.51], p = 0.01, I² = 0%). Both data sets provided no significant difference between the VCD techniques in terms of overall bleeding events (OS: RR 0.57 [95%CI 0.32-1.02], p = 0.06, I² = 70%; and RCT: RR 1.37 [95%CI 0.82-2.28], p = 0.23, I² = 30%). RCT data showed that endovascular stenting or vascular surgery due to VCD failure occurred more often after MANTA application (RR 3.53 [95%CI 1.07-11.33], p = 0.04, I² = 0%).

Conclusions: While OS point to favorable outcomes for large-bore vascular closure with the MANTA-based technique, RCT data show that this strategy is associated with more access-site related vascular complications as well as endovascular stenting or vascular surgery due to device failure compared with the ProGlide-based technique.