OBJECTIVETo assess the efficacy and safety of two arterial closure devices, Angioseal and Perclose, in patients undergoing coronary angiography and invasive interventions.

METHODSFrom January 2001 to April 2011, 997 inpatients underwent coronary angiography and interventions with arterial closure using Perclose (486 cases) or Angioseal (511 cases). The time to ambulation and hemostasis, major vascular complications and deployment success rate with the two devices were compared.

RESULTSThe time to hemostasis was significantly shorter in Angioseal group than in Perclose group (3∓0.9 min vs 10.8∓4.8 min, P<0.001), but the time to ambulation was comparable between the two groups (6.4∓1.2 h vs 6.3∓0.7 h, P>0.05). The incidences of vascular complications showed no significant differences between the two groups (4.5% vs 3.7%, P>0.05), and none of the cases in either group developed femoral artery thrombosis or low limb embolism following the procedures. The deployment success rate was comparable between the two groups (97.8% vss 98.6%, P>0.05), and deployment failure was associated mainly with mishandling and design defect of the devices.

CONCLUSIONSAngioseal and Perclose are both effective and safe for arterial closure with reduced hemostasis and ambulation time and low incidences of vascular complications. Angioseal appears to have better performance than Perclose in shortening the hemostasis time and is easier to handle.