Send to

Choose Destination
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2002 Sep-Oct;25(5):423-9. Epub 2002 Jul 23.

A prospective randomized trial comparing the safety and efficacy of three commercially available closure devices (Angioseal, Vasoseal and Duett).

Author information

Cardiac Department, University Hospital of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.



We compared the safety and efficacy of three closure devices (Angioseal, Vasoseal and Duett) used to close arterial puncture sites in patients who underwent coronary percutaneous procedures.


A prospective randomized, single-center trial was carried out of consecutive patients who underwent coronary angiography [705 patients: Angioseal (243),Vasoseal (228) and Duett (234)] or angioplasty [146 patients:Angioseal (47), Vasoseal (52) and Duett (47)].


In the angiography patients the device deployment rates were similar, with the Angioseal been significantly slower in achieving hemostasis (p = 0.0001) but resulting in earlier ambulation (p = 0.0001). In the coronary angioplasty patients the deployment rates were similar to those for angiography: time to hemostasis was longer for the Angioseal (p = 0.003), while ambulation times were not different, although prolonged compared with angiography (p = 0.0001). The three devices had similar major complication rates. The Vasoseal had a higher major complication rate after angioplasty than after angiography (p = 0.004). The incidence rate of peripheral embolization was lower when the Angioseal was utilized. Severe complications were mainly seen in patients who received abciximab.


The three closure devices had high rates of successful deployment and were relatively safe. The Angioseal resulted in earlier ambulation after angiography. Utilization of closure devices after abciximab administration possibly increased the complications.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center