Arterial Closure vs Direct Compression for Hemostasis After PCI - The ACDC Trial
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00264264|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : December 12, 2005
Last Update Posted : May 16, 2013
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Coronary Angioplasty Coronary Artery Disease||Procedure: Closure Device Procedure: Direct Compression||Not Applicable|
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the most common procedure performed for obstructive coronary artery disease with more than one million procedures performed annually in United States alone1. Despite major advances in technology and operative expertise, the optimum management of arterial access site after PCI procedures remains unclear.
The conventional practice of arterial access site management involves delaying of sheath removal for several hours to allow normalization of heparin induced anticoagulation. This delayed sheath removal poses a risk of recurrent bleeding and hematoma formation. Furthermore, delayed sheath removal results in decreased patient mobility, increased patient discomfort and requires frequent monitoring with an impact on nursing resources. The risks associated with delayed sheath removal may be further increased by concomitant administration of potent anti platelet therapy now routinely used in patients undergoing PCI2.
Arterial puncture closure devices (APCD) were developed to obtain immediate arterial access site hemostasis after closed vascular procedures with an aim towards early patient mobilization. Although the efficacy of APCD have been documented in several small studies but limited information is available regarding their safety in diverse patient populations. A recent meta analysis has shown increased vascular complication rate associated with the use of these devices bringing the safety of their routine use into question3.
Due to lack of definitive data, the arterial access site management varies considerably between physicians and among institutions. APCD are routinely used by some centers4 while others continue to delay arterial sheath removal for several hours after the procedure5.
Immediate sheath removal followed by direct compression though routinely practiced after coronary angiographic procedures is not used after PCI procedures due to the intra procedural administration of heparin resulting in prolonged anticoagulation. Reversal of heparin with protamine may allow immediate sheath removal resulting in early patient ambulation and decreased access site vascular complications. The safety and efficacy of intravenous protamine administration for reversal of heparin is well established by its routine use in cardiovascular surgery for several decades6 and recent reports showing safety and efficacy of this method for early sheath removal after PCI procedures7-9.
The proposed study is designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of immediate sheath removal followed by direct compression as compared to the use of APCD to achieve hemostasis after PCI.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||572 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Masking:||Double (Participant, Outcomes Assessor)|
|Official Title:||Arterial Closure vs Direct Compression for Hemostasis After Percutaneous Coronary Interventions|
|Study Start Date :||July 2006|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||November 2009|
|Actual Study Completion Date :||November 2009|
|Active Comparator: Direct Compression||Procedure: Direct Compression|
|Active Comparator: Closure Device||Procedure: Closure Device|
- A composite of major vascular complications (device failure, bleeding, hematoma, infection, pseudoaneurysm, AV fistula and vascular repair)
- Time to hemostasis
- Ambulation time
- Quality of life
- Composite of minor vascular complication (bleeding, repeat compression, failure to ambulate per protocol),
- Post procedural infarction
- 30 day MACE (death, MI, TVR)
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT00264264
|St. Michael's Hospital|
|Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5B1W8|
|Principal Investigator:||Asim Cheema, MD, PhD||St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto|