{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.057571964956195244, 'fraction_numerical': 0.060075093867334166, 'mean_word_length': 5.642659279778393, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Relationship Between Femoral Vascular Closure Devices and Short-Term Mortality From 271 845 Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Procedures Performed in the United Kingdom Between 2006 and 2011: A Propensity Score–Corrected Analysis From the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society

Background—The impact of vascular closure devices (VCDs) via the femoral arterial access site on short-term mortality in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention is currently unknown. Methods and Results—The association between femoral arterial vascular access site management (manual pressure [including external clamp] versus VCD) and 30-day mortality was examined in a national real-world registry of 271 845 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for elective, non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction and ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction indications in the United Kingdom between 2006 and 2011. Crude and propensity score–corrected analyses were performed using Cox regression, with additional analyses undertaken in clinically relevant subgroups; 40.1% (n=109 001) of subjects were treated with manual pressure and 59.9% (n=162 844) with VCD. Subjects treated with VCD had fewer comorbidities and were less likely to present with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (P<0.001). Crude 30-day mortality was lower in the group treated with VCD compared with manual pressure (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54–0.61; 1.4% versus 2.4%, log rank P<0.0001), findings that were substantially reduced but persisted after propensity score correction (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86–0.97; 1.8% versus 2.0% versus P<0.001). A more pronounced association of VCD with a reduction in 30-day mortality was evident in females (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77–0.94; Pinteraction=0.037), presentation with acute coronary syndrome (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83–0.94; Pinteraction=0.0027), or recent lysis (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40–1.01; Pinteraction=0.0001). Conclusions—When compared with manual pressure, VCD was associated with a minor short-term (30-day) prognostic benefit after propensity score correction in the global population and clinically relevant subgroups. The potential for residual confounding factors impacting on short-term mortality cannot be excluded, despite the study having measured and balanced all recorded confounder factors.