Journal of Vascular Nursing
Volume 24, Issue 4 , Pages 127-132 , December 2006

Peripheral arterial sheath removal program: A performance improvement initiative

This program was honored with a Partners in Excellence Award, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (December, 2003), and with the Best Poster Award by the Society for Vascular Nursing, Albuquerque, NM (June, 2004).

  • Virginia A. Capasso, PhD, APRN, BC

      Affiliations

    • Munn Center for Nursing Research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
    • Wound Care Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress reprint requests to Virginia A. Capasso, PhD, APRN, BC, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street (FND 645), Boston, MA 02114.
    • ,
  • Cheryl Codner, RN, BSN

      Affiliations

    • Vascular Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
    • ,
  • Gregory Nuzzo-Meuller, RN, BA, BSN, MDiv

      Affiliations

    • Vascular Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
    • ,
  • Erin M. Cox, RN, MSN

      Affiliations

    • Vascular Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
    • ,
  • Sharon Bouvier, RN, MS

      Affiliations

    • Vascular Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

References 

  1. Peet GI, McGrath MA, Brunt JH, et al. Clinical rounds (Femoral arterial sheath removal after PTCA: a cross-Canada survey). Can J Cardiovasc Nurs. 1995;6:13–19
  2. Rubin S, Wiens L, Fingler I, et al. Evaluating a change in practice: femoral sheath removal by registered nurses. Can J Card Nurs. 1996;7:19–27
  3. Lehmann KG, Heath-Lange SJ, Ferris ST. Randomized comparison of hemostasis techniques after invasive cardiovascular procedures. Am Heart J. 1999;138:1118–1125
  4. Rickli H, Unterweger M, Sutch G, et al. Comparison of costs and safety of a suture-mediated closure device with conventional manual compression after coronary artery interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2002;57:297–302
  5. Zeller T, Frank U, Muller C, et al. Technological advances in the design of catheters and devices used in renal artery interventions: impact on complications. J Endovasc Ther. 2003;10:1006–1014
  6. Lasevitch R, Melchior R, Gomes V, et al. Early discharge using five French guiding catheter for transfemoral coronary stenting. Am J Cardiol. 2005;96:766–768
  7. Dowling K, Todd D, Siskin G, et al. Early ambulation after diagnostic angiography using 4 Fr. catheters and sheaths: a feasibility study. J Endovasc Ther. 2002;9:618–621
  8. Choussat R, Montalescot G, Collet JP, et al. A unique, low dose intravenous enoxaparin in elective percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:1943–1950
  9. Allie DE, Lirtzman MD, Wyatt CH, et al. Bivalirudin as a foundation anticoagulant in peripheral vascular disease: a safe and feasible alternative for renal and iliac interventions. J Invasive Cardiol. 2003;15:334–342
  10. Allie DE, Hall P, Shammas NW, et al. The Angiomax Peripheral Procedure Registry of Vascular Events Trial (APPROVE): in-hospital and 30-day results. J Interv Cardiol. 2004;16:651–656
  11. Simon A, Bumgarner B, Clark K, et al. Manual versus mechanical compression for femoral artery hemostasis after cardiac catheterization. Am J Crit Care. 1998;4:308–313
  12. Bogart DB, Bogart MA, Miller JT, et al. Femoral artery catheterization complications: a study of 503 consecutive patients. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1995;34:8–13
  13. Pracyk JB, Wall TC, Longabaugh JP, et al. A randomized trial of vascular hemostasis techniques to reduce femoral vascular complications after coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 1998;81:970–976
  14. Chlan LL, Sabo J, Savik K. Effects of three groin compression methods on patient discomfort, distress, and vascular complications following a percutaneous coronary intervention procedure. Nurs Res. 2005;54:391–398
  15. Jones T, McCutcheon H. A randomized controlled trial comparing the use of manual versus mechanical compression to obtain haemostasis following coronary angiography. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2003;19:11–20
  16. Benson LM, Wunderly D, Perry B, et al. Determining best practice: comparison of three methods of femoral sheath removal after cardiac interventional procedures. Heart Lung. 2005;34:115–121
  17. Chevalier B, Lancelin B, Koning R, et al. Effect of a closure device on complication rates in high-local-risk patients: results of a randomized multicenter trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003;58:285–291
  18. Wetter DR, Rickli H, von Smekal A, et al. Early sheath removal after coronary artery interventions with use of a suture-mediated closure-device: clinical outcome and results of Doppler US evaluation. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11:1033–1037
  19. Baim DS, Knopf WD, Hinohara T, et al. Suture-mediated closure of the femoral access site after cardiac catheterization: results of the suture to ambulate and discharge (STAND I and STAND II) trials. Am J Cardiol. 2000;85:864–869
  20. SEAL Trial Study Team. Assessment of the safety and efficacy of the DUETT vascular hemostasis device: final results of the safe and effective vascular hemostasis (SEAL). Am Heart J. 2002;143:612–619
  21. Brown DB. Current status of suture-mediated closure: what is the cost of comfort?. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14:677–681
  22. Hamner JB, Dubois EJ, Rice TP. Predictors of complications associated with closure devices after transfemoral percutaneous coronary procedures. Crit Care Nurse. 2005;25:30–37

PII: S1062-0303(06)00116-6

doi: 10.1016/j.jvn.2006.09.001

Journal of Vascular Nursing
Volume 24, Issue 4 , Pages 127-132 , December 2006

Article Tools