Disclaimer: This site aggregates publicly available data from official government sources (FDA, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, SEC EDGAR) for general reference only. It does NOT constitute medical advice, diagnosis, treatment recommendations, or investment advice.

Clinical Trial

Comparison of a Single Versus Double Perclose Technique for TAVR

NCT: NCT06173115 · COMPLETED

NCT IDNCT06173115
StatusCOMPLETED
Start Date2024-01-23
Completion2026-03-19
SponsorSecond Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, School of Medicine (OTHER)
First posted
Last updated

Brief Summary

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become widely recognized as a minimally invasive approach for aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis. It has been proven to be a safe and effective option for patients who are at low, intermediate, and prohibitive risk for surgical valve replacement. One of the critical components of procedural success in a transfemoral approach is access site management, as vascular complications strongly correlate with adverse outcomes. When major vascular complications occur, there are higher rates of major bleeding, transfusions, and renal failure requiring dialysis, as well as a significantly higher rate of 30-day and 1-year mortality. In recent years, a "preclosure" technique has emerged as a common vascular closure approach using a Perclose Proglide system (Abbott Vascular), in which sutures are deployed before dilating the arterial access site. This allows for arterial closure after dilation to sizing up to larger bore access sheaths that accommodate valve delivery systems. The sutures are subsequently harvested and tightened to close the large bore arteriotomy site at the end of the case. It has been demonstrated that the use of two Perclose devices, or double Perclose closure, is an effective closure technique with a low rate of vascular complications. A large number of TAVR centers have adopted this method for large-bore vascular closure. In the past, there have been few investigations comparing the utilization of a single Perclose device compared to a double Perclose technique. There are numerous theoretical advantages to the use of a single device, which include decreased procedural cost and procedural time. The investigation aimed to determine if there are clinical benefits as well using the single Perclose approach.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Comparison of a Single Versus Double Perclose Technique for TAVR?

Comparison of a Single Versus Double Perclose Technique for TAVR is a clinical trial registered under NCT06173115. Current status: COMPLETED.

What is the status of NCT06173115?

The current status of NCT06173115 (Comparison of a Single Versus Double Perclose Technique for TAVR) is: COMPLETED.

When did Comparison of a Single Versus Double Perclose Technique for TAVR start?

Comparison of a Single Versus Double Perclose Technique for TAVR started on 2024-01-23.

Related Devices

Official Source

View on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov API. For the most current status, refer to the official record.

↑