The Mynx® Vascular Closure Device: The Piedmont Heart Institute Experience

The Mynx® Vascular Closure Device: The Piedmont Heart Institute Experience
The Mynx® Vascular Closure Device: The Piedmont Heart Institute Experience
The Mynx® Vascular Closure Device: The Piedmont Heart Institute Experience
The Mynx® Vascular Closure Device: The Piedmont Heart Institute Experience
The Mynx® Vascular Closure Device: The Piedmont Heart Institute Experience

Charles L. Brown, III, MD, FACC, FACP
Chief Executive Officer, Piedmont Heart Institute Physicians,
Atlanta, Georgia

The Piedmont Heart Institute is a cardiovascular care center serving patients in the greater Atlanta area. It operates an innovative cardiovascular healthcare delivery model that integrates a continuum of care for patients from primary and secondary prevention to outpatient and inpatient cardiovascular care. The Heart Institute is the first integrated cardiovascular healthcare delivery program affiliated with a community health system in the Atlanta area, and includes physician practices and hospital services, including the Fuqua Heart Center of Atlanta at Piedmont Hospital. The Piedmont Heart Institute also provides cardiovascular services to three other hospitals (Piedmont Fayette Hospital, Fayetteville, GA; Piedmont Mountainside Hospital, Jaspar, GA; Piedmont Newnan Hospital, Newnan, GA) and employs 65 cardiologists who work closely with cardiovascular and vascular surgeons in a synergistic model.

Commitment to high-quality patient care at the Institute has meant careful reflection about the options for sealing the arteriotomy after diagnostic and interventional cardiac catheterization procedures. Since the advent of vascular closure devices in the mid-1990s, the published scientific literature has left little doubt that vascular closure devices offer several advantages over manual compression alone, including faster hemostasis and ambulation, increased patient comfort, accelerated time to discharge, and improved patient satisfaction.1-3 While some of this literature has also suggested that earlier generations of closure devices were associated with higher complication rates than manual compression, contemporary analyses of the newer-generation closure devices suggest that such a disparity in complication rates may have been resolved.1, 4-8

Currently, closure devices are employed in about 40%9 of patients, with the majority of patients receiving compression largely due to limitations of traditional closure device technology. For many interventionalists, the rare but serious, even potentially catastrophic, complications associated with traditional closure devices remain a lingering concern. Indeed, infections, femoral artery compromise, arterial laceration, uncontrolled bleeding, device embolism and limb ischemia have all been reported with closure devices.10,11 Such complications, albeit relatively infrequent with the current generation of devices, tend to be more serious (i.e. ischemic or embolic events, infection) than those associated with manual compression (i.e. hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, re-bleed).10-15

Several years ago, many physicians at the Heart Institute abandoned the use of closure devices in favor of manual compression alone. This was based on concern over the infrequent yet very serious complications that can arise with those devices that rely on intra-arterial components. However, the increased patient comfort, limited bedrest and early ambulation with closure devices remained an important consideration. We decided to try a new device called the Mynx Vascular Closure Device (Figure 1) (Access Closure, Inc., Mountain View, CA). Physicians were initially intrigued by the extravascular design because, with no intra-arterial components left behind in the vessel, it should not be prone to ischemic, embolic or infectious complications. It appeared that the Mynx Vascular Closure Device could provide the convenience of groin closure for the patient and catheterization laboratory staff without the risk of potentially catastrophic vascular complications.

In this article, we share a retrospective review of our first 10 months using the Mynx device for arteriotomy closure after diagnostic and interventional catheterizations at Piedmont Hospital.

An Extravascular Sealant

The Mynx device was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in May 2007 for arteriotomy closure after diagnostic and interventional cardiac catheterization procedures. Hemostasis is achieved by delivering a water-soluble, bio-inert, non-thrombogenic sealant on the shaft of a delivery catheter to the surface of the artery. The catheter is advanced through the existing 6F or 7F sheath used for the catheterization procedure. Apposition of a 6-mm semi-compliant balloon to the anterior arterial wall establishes temporary hemostasis during deployment of the sealant and ensures its extra-arterial placement. As the sealant encounters blood and subcutaneous fluids, they immediately fill the porous structure of the sealant, creating a durable hemostasis, sealing the arteriotomy and tissue tract (Figure 2).

The Mynx sealant is made of polyethylene glycol (PEG), a bio-inert polymer with an established safety profile in a broad range of medical applications, including gel caps and cranial sealing. When delivered to the tissue tract, the PEG sealant instantly absorbs blood and fluids from the arteriotomy, creating a hydrated, porous sealant that provides immediate hemostasis by swelling 3 to 4 times its original size. When fully expanded, the sealant is composed of 95% blood and fluids and 5% PEG. The sealant material completely dissipates through hydrolysis within 30 days. Because the PEG monomers generated during hydrolysis are small enough to undergo renal clearance, all traces of the sealant are removed from the body.

The extravascular sealant design offers several potential advantages. Closure devices employing collagen-based or metallic technologies to compress, suture, or clip the arteriotomy site, necessitate placement of components within the arterial lumen or wall. Mynx provides an immediate mechanical seal over the arteriotomy and within the tissue tract, achieving hemostasis with placement of the sealant outside of the artery, avoiding compromise of the lumen that may result from components residing within the artery or wall. The tissue-like, resorbable sealant may eliminate factors that can make re-access challenging, such as excessive fibrotic responses. Early experience has shown a marked absence of inflammation and scarring following use of the Mynx device (Figure 3). The absence of sutures or clips also eliminates the need for tugging or cinching during deployment, which can result in trauma to the artery. The comparatively gentle deployment of the extravascular sealant minimizes pain or discomfort for the patient during closure. Additionally, because the rapidly expanding sealant also fills the tissue tract, there is less likelihood of post-procedure oozing and the subsequent utilization of nursing resources and hemostatic pads, as well as potential for delayed ambulation. With delivery of the sealant through the existing 6F or 7F procedural sheath, tract dilation and sheath exchange are not required, which should limit potential for enlargement of the arteriotomy site, infection and inflammation.

In one early prospective study of 190 patients undergoing diagnostic or interventional cardiac catheterization at five European centers, the sealant was successfully delivered in 99.5% of patients with no evidence of sealant migration, embolization or intra-arterial deployment.16 Hemostasis was achieved in a median 0.5 minutes with no significant difference observed between diagnostic and interventional patients (0.5 vs. 0.6 minutes). The mean time to ambulation was 2.6 hours. The only major complication was a single case (0.5%) of access-site bleeding requiring blood transfusion.

The Piedmont Hospital Experience

Historically, vascular access-related complications occur in 0.8% to 1.8% of diagnostic catheterizations and 1.5% to 9% of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).17 We decided to retrospectively analyze our experience to understand whether use of a new device would result in a decreased risk of complications for our patients.

In the first 10 months using the Mynx device at Piedmont Hospital (October 2007 to July 2008), 761 patients undergoing diagnostic (n=554, 73%) or interventional catheterization (n=207, 27%) primarily with 6F sheaths had their arteriotomies closed with this extravascular closure device. The Mynx device was initially used for closure after diagnostic catheterizations and later used in PCI. Anticoagulation in the PCI population of patients was primarily achieved with bivalirudin (89%), with heparin (8%) and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (3%) administered in a minority of cases. The Mynx device was successfully deployed in 98.7% of cases with few vascular complications. The low major vascular complication rate of 0.67% (n=5) included 1 retroperitoneal bleed, 1 surgical repair, and 3 blood transfusions. The minor vascular complication rate of 0.53% reflects the occurrence of 4 small pseudoaneurysms that resolved without sequelae. As might be expected with a sealant technology applied extra-arterially, these complications were more similar to those seen with manual compression. Outcomes with the Mynx device have been excellent, especially as one considers that this experience incorporates operator learning curves and that catastrophic complications were non-existent. Results are summarized in Table 1.

From an operator perspective, the device was easy to deploy, with deployment steps and techniques mastered in the first few procedures. In our practice, angiographic assessment of the femoral anatomy is performed in all cases to identify the arteriotomy location and other important anatomical variances prior to deploying the Mynx device. Following deployment of the sealant, mild to moderate pressure is applied for 2-3 minutes at the arteriotomy site to permit adequate time for the sealant to expand.

In this community hospital-based experience, the Mynx device was deployed by more than 15 operators in more than 750 patients during the early experience. It should be noted, of course, that because these procedures were performed at a single center, the outcomes may be vulnerable to the effects of operator-dependent factors that could influence device success and subsequent patient outcomes. Nonetheless, these outcomes reflect real-world experience during the early adoption of a new vascular closure technology in a large catheterization laboratory.

Patient Comfort

One of the major benefits of the Mynx device is the lack of pain associated with the procedure. From a patient perspective, patients in the Piedmont experience were often unaware that the Mynx device had been placed at the end of the procedure. For some who had prior experience with traditional closure devices, it was surprising that the Mynx device was placed without some degree of pain. In our experience, Mynx has been consistently associated in most patients with absence of pain or only the slightest discomfort for the patient.

After Mynx closure, patients need not endure manual compression or the ensuing extended period of bed rest. In our experience, there is very little, if any, oozing, perhaps because the tissue tract is sealed along with the arteriotomy. The device has also proved helpful in hard-to-close, very overweight or obese patients where manual compression is challenging due to difficulty locating the femoral artery and holding pressure.

Complex Patients


1. Dauerman HL, Applegate RJ, Cohen DJ. Vascular closure devices: the second decade. J Am Coll Cardiol Oct 23 2007;50(17):1617-1626.
2. Koreny M, Riedmuller E, Nikfardjam M, et al. Arterial puncture closing devices compared with standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Jan 21 2004;291(3):350-357.
3. Nikolsky E, Mehran R, Halkin A, et al. Vascular complications associated with arteriotomy closure devices in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol Sep 15 2004;44(6):1200-1209.
4. Arora N, Matheny ME, Sepke C, et al. A propensity analysis of the risk of vascular complications after cardiac catheterization procedures with the use of vascular closure devices. Am Heart J Apr 2007;153(4):606-611.
5. Behan MW, Large JK, Patel NR, et al. A randomised controlled trial comparing the routine use of an Angio-Seal STS device strategy with conventional femoral haemostasis methods in a district general hospital. Int J Clin Pract Mar 2007;61(3):367-372.
6. Hermiller JB, Simonton C, Hinohara T, et al. The StarClose Vascular Closure System: interventional results from the CLIP study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Nov 2006;68(5):677-683.
7. Martin JL, Pratsos A, Magargee E, et al. A randomized trial comparing compression, Perclose Proglide and Angio-Seal VIP for arterial closure following percutaneous coronary intervention: the CAP trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Jan 1 2008;71(1):1-5.
8. Rastan A, Sixt S, Schwarzwalder U, et al. VIPER-2: a prospective, randomized single-center comparison of 2 different closure devices with a hemostatic wound dressing for closure of femoral artery access sites. J Endovasc Ther Feb 2008;15(1):83-90.
9. Millennium Research Group. Global Markets for Vascular Closure Devices Toronto, ON Canada: 2007
10. Tavris DR, Gallauresi BA, Lin B, et al. Risk of local adverse events following cardiac catheterization by hemostasis device use and gender. J Invasive Cardiol Sep 2004;16(9):459-464.
11. Carey D, Martin JR, Moore CA, et al. Complications of femoral artery closure devices. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Jan 2001;52(1):3-7; discussion 8.
12. Gemmete JJ, Dasika N, Forauer AR, et al. Successful angioplasty of a superficial femoral artery stenosis caused by a suture-mediated closure device. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Jul-Aug 2003;26(4):410-412.
13. Jang JJ, Kim M, Gray B, et al. Claudication secondary to Perclose use after percutaneous procedures. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv May 2006;67(5):687-695.
14. Stock U, Flach P, Gross M, et al. Intravascular misplacement of an extravascular closure system: StarClose. J Interv Cardiol Apr 2006;19(2):170-172.
15. Warren BS, Warren SG, Miller SD. Predictors of complications and learning curve using the Angio-Seal closure device following interventional and diagnostic catheterization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Oct 1999;48(2):162-166.
16. Scheinert D, Sievert H, Turco MA, et al. The safety and efficacy of an extravascular, water-soluble sealant for vascular closure: initial clinical results for Mynx. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Nov 1 2007;70(5):627-633.
17. Arora N, Matheney M, Sepke C, et al. A propensity analysis of the risk of vascular complications after cardiac catheterization procedures with the use of vascular closure devices. Am Heart J 2007;153:606-611.
18. Cox N, Resnic FS, Popma JJ, et al. Comparison of the risk of vascular complications associated with femoral and radial access coronary catheterization procedures in obese versus nonobese patients. Am J Cardiol Nov 1 2004;94:1174-1177.

Anonymoussays: June 29.2010 at 08:21 am

June 2009 I had a catherization and the Mynx was used. Now a year later, I still experience deep pain in the area. I do not know if it is from the precedure or from the device. I think further study is warranted.
BB-Holly Springs, NC

Reply to this comment »
Anonymoussays: August 12.2010 at 00:27 am

I had a cath procedure on 07/22/2010. Mynx was used. 3 days after the procedure, I was in so much pain, I had to return to the hospital for a follow up and ultrasound. 6 days after the procedure, I developed a sizable lump and tenderness in the groin area. Was examined and given another ultrasound. Was given antibiotics and pain meds. Now 3 weeks later, I am in no pain but the lump is still there. A nurse practioner who works in cardiology finally told me that the collagen in the Mynx device will probably be there causing that lump for the next 90 days or so. Apparently it takes some people a little longer to absorb the collagen in the closure device. That made me feel alot better. Since I had previosly bled out after an earlier cath procedure, I think that I prefer this inconvenience to that.

Reply to this comment »
Jackysays: April 17.2011 at 19:08 pm

I just had the cath on Wednesday, 4/13/11, with the Mynx closure. I have developed quite a bruise, although I bruise easily and a lump in the area. The lump has not changed but it is quite a discomfort. The doctors thought I would be taking the stairs by today and perhaps driving, but I do not think so with this complication. One Advil per day seems to keep me tolerating it. It appears that from all my research, the Mynx should alleviate these types of problems. Since I am new at this, I just want to be sure that I'm progressing as I should.

Reply to this comment »
Anonymoussays: October 6.2010 at 20:26 pm

I have undergone 10+ caths since 1992 and now have 17 stents in my coronary arteries. I just had ny latest cath on October 5, 2010 (yesterday). All but one of these procedures was performed by the same Dr. (Dr. John Hartley, Huntsville, AL). I have undergone about every closure option available; clamps, weights, angioseal, etc. This time the new Mynx device was used. I guess I've been luckier than many I've seen posting experiences but I've never really developed any short or long term issues from any of these devices. The issues have always been pain and time. I've been taking Plavix for several years to combat my disease so it's even more difficult to stop any bleeding. I've spent too many nights in the hospital because of difficulties in getting the bleeding stopped. I have had varying degrees of pain during the closure and after and it's been a definite complication and unwelcomed issues after such an emotion packed event. The Mynx was incredible! My Dr. told me he was going to do it and I really trust this guy. It was done in seconds, no pain, no bruises, no pressure, no clamps....nothing and I was rolled into the recovery area. I stayed there for 2 hours after which I was up and walking and went home pain free an hour later. It's 24 hours later and I removed the bandage; no blood, no swelling....incredible. The doctors that did this study are right on. I hope I don't need another cath but if I do, I will request the Mynx as long as the circumstances are right for the procedure. From an experienced patient, this is the BEST I've had and the easiest procedure that I've been through.

Reply to this comment »
Jackysays: April 17.2011 at 22:38 pm

Had a cath procedure Wednesday 4/13/11, received two stents. 99% blockage in The Widow Maker. Used Mynx closure system. Since I've been home, I developed a large bruise across my abdomen and a lump in the crease of my right groin. There is discomfort associated with this and I expected on day 3, today, I could walk the steps and maybe even drive, but I don't think so. This is my first experience with cardiac and I want to be sure that what I'm experiencing is not out of the ordinary.

Reply to this comment »
anthony j. savocasays: July 15.2011 at 09:53 am

i had my second stent procedure on july 11, 2011. dr wiedermann used the mynx device twice and i am extremely pleased. absolutely no problems. little bruising, that was it

Reply to this comment »
Jimmy Fainsays: January 25.2013 at 14:35 pm

i had a heart cath about 8 years ago and bled out, the end result from stopping the bleeding by compresion was a blood clot to my lower leg.
I had another heart cath yesterday and the mynx closure was used, let me say i perfer this device, no bleeding or discharge feel great. a lot less pain than before.

Reply to this comment »

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Enter the characters shown in the image.