Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of the MANTA Closure Device in Large-Bore Femoral Arterial Access at Hanoi Heart Hospital
Main Article Content
Abstract
The MANTA vascular closure device was evaluated in a prospective study conducted at Hanoi Heart Hospital from March 2025 to September 2025 in 13 patients who underwent 20 procedures, including 2 TAVI, 4 TEVAR, and 7 EVAR cases performed via the common femoral artery. Clinical characteristics, procedural parameters, technical success, immediate complications, and six-month ultrasound follow-up were collected. All procedures used 16 – 18F sheaths and were closed with the 18F MANTA device, with a mean common femoral artery diameter of 6.5 ± 0.3mm. The technical success rate was 95% (19/20), with one case requiring surgical conversion and one minor bleeding event managed conservatively; no arterial occlusion, pseudoaneurysm, or arteriovenous fistula was detected. The mean closure time was 60 ± 4 seconds, and six-month ultrasound follow-up in all 13 patients revealed no late complication, confirming the safety and effectiveness of MANTA in large-bore closure following endovascular interventions.
Article Details
Keywords
MANTA, large-bore access, vascular closure device, TAVI, EVAR, TEVAR
References
2. Genereux P, Head SJ, Hahn R, et al. Vascular complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the PARTNER trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(12):1043-1052.
3. Greenhalgh RM, Brown LC, Powell JT, et al. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(20):1863-1871.
4. Andrews RT, Rapoport S, Shifrin R, et al. Surgical cutdown versus percutaneous access for EVAR: a prospective randomized trial. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1994;5(5):619-622.
5. De Palma R, Stabile E, Pucciarelli A, et al. Clinical outcomes with the MANTA vascular closure device: a multicenter experience. EuroIntervention. 2020;16(7):603-610.
6. Barbanti M, Gulino S, Costa G, et al. Comparison of suture-based and plug-based vascular closure devices in transfemoral TAVR. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;85(4):611-617.
7. Saito S, Yamamoto M, Shimura T, et al. Vascular complications in TF-TAVR using combined ProGlide and Angio-Seal. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2016;31(1):37-43.
8. Van Mieghem NM, Tchetche D, van der Boon RMA, et al. First-in-human use of the MANTA device after TF-TAVR. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;88(2):308-314.
9. Wood DA, Krajcer Z, Strickman N, et al. Pivotal clinical study of the MANTA percutaneous closure device for large-bore arteriotomies. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(12):e007258.
10. van Wiechen MP, Ligthart J, Hoornweg LL, et al. Suture- or plug-based large-bore arteriotomy closure after TF-TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14(1):48-61.
11. Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease. Circulation. 2021;143(5):e72-e227.
12. Moriyama N, Ochiai T, Tobaru T, et al. Propensity-matched comparison of MANTA versus ProGlide after TAVR. EuroIntervention. 2019;14:e1558-e1567.
13. Abdel-Wahab M, Hartung P, Geist V, et al. CHOICE-CLOSURE randomized trial: MANTA versus ProGlide in TF-TAVR. Circulation. 2022;145(18):1377-1389.
14. Mahalwar G, Kumar S, Yadav R, et al. Meta-analysis of ProGlide versus MANTA vascular closure in large-bore access. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2022;63(6).
15. van Wiechen MP, den Haan P, van Seventer E, et al. Vascular complications with plug-based closure after TF-TAVR. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;98(7):E1052-E1060.
16. Moccetti F, Taramasso M, Buzzatti N, et al. Multidisciplinary introduction of MANTA: the first 100 cases. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(17).