I chose to look up information on the use of vascular closure devices (Angio-Seal) versus the use of manual pressure following a percutaneous coronary intervention or a CATH procedure. This is a discussion that I had in clinical recently with Lisa. We discussed the use of the Angio-Seal and how it isn’t seen as often. I believe it is preference of the Doctor doing the procedure. According to Gregory, Midodzi, and Pearce (2013) there has been conflicting data about whether the VCD’s decrease, increase, or do not alter the risk of access site complications. The authors had 11, 897 participants. 7, 063 participants received an angio-seal VCD and 4, 834 did not. There were two samples; in the CATH sample 4,845 received a VCD and 4, 030 did not. In the PCI sample, 804 did not receive a VCD and 2, 218 did receive a VCD. Vascular complications rates were lower with both sample groups with the use of VCD. The authors found that the use of VCDs have been associated with earlier ambulation and improved comfort. However, manual compression has been the “gold” standard for 60 years and remains a controversy in whether or not there is any more of a benefit with the use of VCDs. Overall, a low incidence of vascular complications were observed with the use of VCD (angio-seal) in comparison to manual compression (Gregory, Midodzi, & Pearce, 2013).

I found this article interesting and will look further into more research. Because of patient privacy I have chosen not to talk about my situation in clinical with an Angio-Seal versus manual compression.

References

Gregory, D., Midodzi, W., & Pearce, N. (2013). Complicaitons with Angio-Seal vasuclar closure devices compared with manual compression after diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention. Journal of Interventional Cardiology , 26 (6), 630-638.