Efficacy and Safety of Venous Closure Devices for Femoral Venous Access in Interventional Cardiology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Venous closure devices (VCDs) are being increasingly used after femoral venous access to facilitate recovery, but their comparative efficacy and safety versus manual compression or figure-of-eight suture remain uncertain. Because femoral venous access management is influenced by patient-related and procedural factors, VCDs may contribute to a more personalized postprocedural recovery strategy. Objective: Evaluation of the impact of VCDs on procedural recovery and vascular complications in patients undergoing cardiac procedures via femoral venous access. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL through to April 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VCDs with manual compression and/or figure-of-eight suture. Primary efficacy outcomes were time to hemostasis (TTH), time to ambulation (TTA), time to discharge (TTD), and time to discharge eligibility (TTDe). Safety outcomes were major and minor vascular complications. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2, and certainty of evidence assessed with GRADE. Random-effects models were used to pool standardized mean differences (SMDs) or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Seven RCTs (n = 948) were included. VCDs use significantly reduced TTH (SMD: −1.00; 95% CI: −1.57 to −0.42) and TTA (SMD: −1.50; 95% CI: −2.42 to −0.58). TTD showed a non-significant trend favoring VCDs (SMD: −0.99; 95% CI: −2.13 to 0.15), while TTDe was consistently shorter with VCDs across three trials. Major vascular complications were rare and similar between groups (RR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.09–1.89). Minor vascular complications were significantly reduced with VCDs (RR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.22–0.79). Conclusions: In patients requiring femoral venous access for interventional cardiology procedures, VCDs improve time to hemostasis and ambulation and reduce minor vascular complications without increasing major events. These findings support VCDs as an effective and safe strategy for venous closure.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Personalized Medicine
Published
2026-06-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm16070340
Primary Topic
Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Efficacy and Safety of Venous Closure Devices for Femoral Venous Access in Interventional Cardiology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Andrea Giovanni Parato, Weili Marco Xu, Giuseppe Stifano, Vincenzo Mirco La Fazia et al.
Journal of Personalized Medicine
Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
article

Efficacy and Safety of Venous Closure Devices for Femoral Venous Access in Interventional Cardiology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Andrea Giovanni Parato, Weili Marco Xu, Giuseppe Stifano, Vincenzo Mirco La Fazia, Giovanni Albano, Marcello Marchetta, Emanuele Chiarazzo, Lorenzo Gerardi, Marco Marino, Laura Colarocchio, Andrea Natale, Alessandro Di Francesco, Valerio Marongiu, Francesco Pocelli
article en

Abstract

Background: Venous closure devices (VCDs) are being increasingly used after femoral venous access to facilitate recovery, but their comparative efficacy and safety versus manual compression or figure-of-eight suture remain uncertain. Because femoral venous access management is influenced by patient-related and procedural factors, VCDs may contribute to a more personalized postprocedural recovery strategy. Objective: Evaluation of the impact of VCDs on procedural recovery and vascular complications in patients undergoing cardiac procedures via femoral venous access. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL through to April 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VCDs with manual compression and/or figure-of-eight suture. Primary efficacy outcomes were time to hemostasis (TTH), time to ambulation (TTA), time to discharge (TTD), and time to discharge eligibility (TTDe). Safety outcomes were major and minor vascular complications. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2, and certainty of evidence assessed with GRADE. Random-effects models were used to pool standardized mean differences (SMDs) or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Seven RCTs (n = 948) were included. VCDs use significantly reduced TTH (SMD: −1.00; 95% CI: −1.57 to −0.42) and TTA (SMD: −1.50; 95% CI: −2.42 to −0.58). TTD showed a non-significant trend favoring VCDs (SMD: −0.99; 95% CI: −2.13 to 0.15), while TTDe was consistently shorter with VCDs across three trials. Major vascular complications were rare and similar between groups (RR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.09–1.89). Minor vascular complications were significantly reduced with VCDs (RR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.22–0.79). Conclusions: In patients requiring femoral venous access for interventional cardiology procedures, VCDs improve time to hemostasis and ambulation and reduce minor vascular complications without increasing major events. These findings support VCDs as an effective and safe strategy for venous closure.

Journal of Personalized MedicineVol. 16(7)
University of Rome Tor Vergata (IT), St David's Medical Center (US), Scripps Clinic (US), Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia (US), Case Western Reserve University (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.