Abstract 14772: Comparing Efficacy of Venous Closure Devices in Patients Undergoing Atrial Fibrillation and Atrial Flutter Ablation: A Retrospective Review

Introduction: Vascular closure devices have shown marked improvement in patient comfort and time to ambulation after undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL) radiofrequency ablation. They have been proven superior to manual closure and Figure of 8 suture in terms of pain control and time to ambulate. However, data comparing different vascular closure devices is sparse. Hypothesis: To compare the efficacy of venous closure devices Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 100 patients at our institution who underwent AF and AFL radiofrequency ablation. We aimed to assess the difference in time to ambulation, device failure, pain control and vascular complication rate between the two commonly used venous closure devices (VASCADE and PERCLOSE). Results: A total of 100 patients (50 in each arm) were included in the study. The mean age was 67.6 + 9.3 years and 73% patients were men. The two groups were well balanced with respect to baseline demographics and clinical characteristics except for coronary artery disease (24% VASCADE vs. 14% PERCLOSE, p <0.001). No significant difference was observed in time to ambulate between PERCLOSE (2 + 0.21 hours) vs VASCADE (2 + 0.23 hours); p=0.74. 8% patients (n=4) in VASCADE arm required additional PERCLOSE to achieve hemostasis. 4% (n=2) patients in PERCLOSE arm required opioids for pain management; compared to none in VASCADE arm. No closure device related complications were observed in either arm. Conclusions: Both venous vascular closure systems offer similar efficacy in terms of time to ambulate. However, PERCLOSE was used in addition to VASCADE in a few instances to achieve hemostasis.