Dual ProGlide versus ProGlide and FemoSeal for vascular access haemostasis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Large-bore arteriotomy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) requires percutaneous vascular closure devices, but real-world data comparing different closure strategies are limited. We sought to compare a dual ProGlide strategy vs a combination of one ProGlide and one FemoSeal for vascular closure after TAVI. We retrospectively analysed 874 propensity score-matched patients undergoing TAVI at the Munich University Hospital from August 2018 to October 2020. From August 2018 to August 2019, a dual ProGlide strategy was used for vascular closure. From October 2019 to October 2020, a combination of one ProGlide and one FemoSeal was used. The primary endpoint was defined as access-related major vascular complications or bleeding ≥Type 2 according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria. Patients in the dual ProGlide group (n=437) had a higher incidence of the primary endpoint than patients treated with one ProGlide and one FemoSeal (n=437; 11.4% vs 3.0%; p