External Suture-Retention Device Versus Manual Compression for Venous Access-Site Closure Post-Ablation: The LockeT II Study

Authors

• Aashish Katapadi, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute
• Karnik Patel, HCA Midwest Health
• Nikhila Chelikam, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute
• Ayesha Arab, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley School of Medicine
• Eli Herink
• Madison J. Spence
• Rajesh Kabra
• Naga Venkata K. Pothineni
• Douglas Darden

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

8-1-2026

Abstract

Introduction: The LockeT external suture retention device addresses the shortcomings of manual compression (MC), and other vascular closure devices—namely, prolonged immobilization, resource utilization, and costs. Objective: In this study, we compare the safety and effectiveness of LockeT to that of MC.

Methods: We performed a prospective, single-center study of patients (N) undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation, randomized 1:1 to MC or LockeT. Each vascular access site (n) was included for analysis. Assessments included hemostasis at two hours (HA2H), time to ambulation (TTA), time to (TTD) and same-day discharge (SDD), groin complications, and a patient comfort assessment. Cost analysis was also performed.

Results: Patients were randomized to MC (N = 49; n = 98) or LockeT (N = 52; n = 102). Procedural times (119 [IQR 91−155] vs. 106 [IQR 84−127], p = 0.104) and maximum sheath size (8.5 [IQR 8.5−11] vs. 8.5 [IQR 8.5−11], p = 0.730) were no different. Neither HA2H (95.5% vs. 99%, p = 0.129) nor SDD rates (23.5% vs. 36.0%, p = 0.06) differed. However, TTA was significantly less (5.1 [IQR 3.9−6.5] vs. 4.4 [IQR 3.4−5.3], p = 0.017) in those with LockeT. In patients with SSD, the TTD was significantly shorter (6.0 [IQR 4.8−6.5] vs. 4.6 [IQR 4.3−4.9], p < 0.001). The cumulative complications were also significantly less (11.2% vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001) with LockeT.

Conclusion: The LockeT is associated with lower TTA, without major complications, and with effective hemostasis. It also limits post-procedural time for groin management. However, further evaluation of the device is needed.

Comments

© 2026 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/XZII4DRBEQERVRBMPVZR?target=10.1111/jce.70369

Recommended Citation

Katapadi, A., Patel, K., Chelikam, N., Arab, A., Herink, E., Spence, M. J., ... & Lakkireddy, D. (2026). External Suture‐Retention Device Versus Manual Compression for Venous Access‐Site Closure Post‐Ablation: The LockeT II Study. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.70369

First Page

1723

Last Page

1730

Publication Title

Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology

DOI

10.1111/jce.70369

Academic Level

medical student