Real-World Experience With the Angio-Seal Closure Device: Insights From Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database
Aida Ahrari,Gerard M Healy,Adam Min,Fahd Alkhalifah,George Oreopoulos,Kong Teng Tan,Arash Jaberi,Dheeraj K Rajan,Sebastian Mafeld
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15266028231219226
2023-12-18
Abstract:Purpose: Angio-Seal (Terumo Medical Corporations, Somerset, New Jersey) device is indicated for femoral arteriotomy closure. Real-world published data on complications are limited. We present 1 year of safety events involving Angio-Seal from the US Food and Drug Administration's post-market surveillance database of Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE). Steps for managing frequent device-related problems are discussed. Materials and methods: Angio-Seal MAUDE data from November 2019 to December 2020 was classified according to (1) mode of device failure, (2) complication, (3) treatment, and (4) Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) adverse event classification system. Results: There were 715 safety events, involving Angio-Seal VIP (93.1%), Evolution (5.7%), STS Plus (1.1%), and sizes 6F (62.5%) and 8F (37.5%). Failure mode involved unrecognized use of a damaged device (43.4%), failed deployment (20.1%), failed arterial advancement (6.3%), detachment of device component (4.9%), failed retraction (3.6%), operator error (1.1%), and indeterminate (20.6%). Of total, 44.8% of events were associated with patient harm. Complications involved minor blood loss (34.1%), hematoma (5.6%), significant blood loss (1.4%), and pseudoaneurysm (1.4%). Of total, 43.3% of cases required manual compression (MC), whereas 8.8% required more advanced intervention. Interventions included surgical repair (49.2%), thrombin injection (9.5%), balloon tamponade (6.3%), covered stent (4.8%), and unspecified (30.2%). Majority of safety events were CIRSE grade 1 (92.0%), followed by grades 2 (3.1%), 3 (4.6%), and 6 (deaths, 0.3%). Minority of devices were returned for manufacturer analysis (27.8%). Conclusions: The majority of safety events were associated with minor blood loss or local hematoma and could be addressed with MC alone. Most events were attributed to damaged device; however, very few devices were returned to manufacturer for analysis. This should be encouraged to allow for root cause analysis in order to improve safety profile of devices. System-level strategies for addressing barriers to under-reporting of safety events may also be considered. Clinical impact: Our study highlights important safety events encountered in real-world practice with Angio-Seal closure device. The MAUDE database captures real-world device malfunctions not typically appreciated in conventional clinical trials. Our study provides valuable insight for clinician-users on anticipating and managing the most common device malfunctions. Additionally, our data provide feedback for manufactures to optimize product design and direct manufacturer user training to improve safety. Finally, we hope that the study promotes system-level strategies that foster reporting of safety events and undertaking of root cause analysis.