+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Assessment of the safety and efficacy of the DUETT vascular hemostasis device: Final results of the safe and effective vascular hemostasis (SEAL) trial

Assessment of the safety and efficacy of the DUETT vascular hemostasis device: Final results of the safe and effective vascular hemostasis (SEAL) trial

American Heart Journal 143(4): 612-619

Objective: We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of the novel DUETT vascular hemostasis device in comparison with standard manual compression after diagnostic and interventional coronary procedures. Background: Vascular hemostasis devices are increasingly used to improve patient comfort and speed mobilization after coronary and peripheral vascular procedures. Currently available devices have certain limitations, however. Methods: At 16 clinical sites, 630 patients who underwent diagnostic or interventional coronary procedures were randomized 5:3 to the DUETT sealing device or standard manual compression. The primary study end points were time to hemostasis and ambulation and the incidence of major vascular complications at 30 days. Results: Time to hemostasis from the completion of the procedure (catheter removal; median) was 14 minutes (interquartile range (IQR), 10, 17 minutes) in the DUETT group and 195 minutes (IQR, 46, 351 minutes) in the standard compression group (P<.001), and time from sheath removal (median) was 7 minutes (IQR, 6, 8 minutes) and 20 minutes (IQR, 15, 30 minutes) for the 2 groups, respectively (P<.001). Time to ambulation from catheter removal (median) was 338 minutes (IQR, 223, 526 minutes) in the DUETT group and 705 minutes (IQR, 400, 1120 minutes) in the standard compression group (P<.001). Major complications occurred in 3.6% of the DUETT group and 1.7% of the standard compression group (P=.22), with a diminishing risk of complications in the DUETT group as experience was accrued. Similar benefits from DUETT use were seen in patients who underwent both diagnostic and interventional procedures. Conclusion: The DUETT sealing device allows immediate arterial sheath removal after both diagnostic and interventional procedures, dramatically reducing time to hemostasis and patient ambulation without compromising patient safety in comparison with standard compression techniques.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 010209649

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 11923797

DOI: 10.1067/mhj.2002.121464

Related references

Current hemostasis, ambulation, and complication rates for the recently approved vascular hemostasis device, DUETT Overall results of the US clinical trials. American Journal of Cardiology 86(Suppl 8A): 37i, 2000

A randomized comparison of a novel bioabsorbable vascular closure device versus manual compression in the achievement of hemostasis after percutaneous femoral procedures: the ECLIPSE (Ensure's Vascular Closure Device Speeds Hemostasis Trial). Jacc. Cardiovascular Interventions 2(8): 785-793, 2009

Cost-effectiveness of the Duett vascular sealing device Results from the SEAL trial. American Journal of Cardiology 86(Suppl 8A): 57i, 2000

The safety and efficacy of "pre-closure" utilizing the Closer suture-mediated vascular closure device for achievement of hemostasis in patients following coronary interventions: results of the second Perclose Accelerated Ambulation and Discharge (PARADISE II) Trial. Journal of Invasive Cardiology 17(1): 30-33, 2005

A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Clinical Trial on the Safety and Efficacy of a Ready-to-Use Fibrin Sealant as an Adjunct to Hemostasis during Vascular Surgery. Annals of Vascular Surgery 45: 127-137, 2017

Randomized controlled trial of topical hemostasis pad use for achieving vascular hemostasis following percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 69(6): 801-807, 2007

Comparison of hemostasis time and vascular complications between the angio-seal hemostatic puncture closure and device and manual pressure. Circulation 92(8 Suppl. ): I599, 1995

Safety and efficacy of clip-based vs. suture mediated vascular closure for femoral access hemostasis: A prospective randomized single center study comparing the StarClose and the ProGlide device. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 91(3): 402-407, 2018

Vascular complications after percutaneous coronary intervention following hemostasis with the Mynx vascular closure device versus the AngioSeal vascular closure device. Journal of Invasive Cardiology 22(4): 175-178, 2010

Safety and efficacy of a new procedure for vascular hemostasis after catheterization. European Heart Journal 13(ABSTR Suppl.): 74, 1992

AbsorbaSeal™ Vascular Closure Device: A Novel Device for Hemostasis Following Interventional Peripheral Vascular Procedures. Surgical Technology International 31: 93-99, 2017

Arterial hemostasis using the Duett sealing device. Techniques in Vascular and Interventional Radiology 6(2): 85-91, 2003

Liquid glue for vascular sealing: is Duett's composition safe and effective?. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 51(3): 371-372, 2000

Final report of the European multi-center registry using the Duett vascular sealing device. Herz 24(8): 620-623, 1999

Reduced compression time using a vascular hemostasis device after diagnostic angiography and angioplasty A multi-center randomized trial. Circulation 86(4 Suppl. 1): I372, 1992