507 - Comparison of the Celt and Mynx Grip Arterial Closure Devices

Monday, April 13, 2026

12:10 PM - 1:10 PM ET

Poster Presenter(s)

AN

Andrew Nguyen, DO

Resident
ChristianaCare, United States

Author/Co-author(s)

VJ

Vishal Jindal, DO, DO

Resident
ChristianaCare, United States
NP

Nirav Patel, DO, DO

Resident
ChristianaCare, United States
KC

Katrina Chuah, DO

Resident
ChristianaCare, United States
DL

Daniel A. Leung, MD, FSIR

Professor, Program Director
Christiana Care Health Services, United States
Christopher J. Grilli, DO, FSIR

Attending Physician
Christiana Care, United States
Assaf Graif, MD (he/him/his)

Attending Physician
ChristianaCare, United States

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness and safety of the Celt Arterial Closure Device (CACD, Vasorum Ltd., Dublin, Ireland) and the Mynx Grip (MG, Cordis, Miami Lakes, FL, USA) for closure of arterial access.

Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent closure of arterial access with either a 5F CACD (n=94 patients, 66.5±16.6 years, 37.2% females) or 5F MG (n=102, 64.8±18.6 years {p=.5}, 44.1% female {p=.3}) between 2023-2024 in a single health care system. All CACD were performed under ultrasound guidance. There was no significant difference in demographics, including ASA scores, between the groups except for a higher rate of hypertension in the CACD group (73.4% vs. 57.8%, p=.025). Technical success was defined as successful deployment of closure device per instructions. Procedural success was defined as hemostasis achieved without need for a secondary intervention or manual compression beyond that required in the instructions. Adverse events (AE) were defined according to SIR classification. Adverse events that were considered to be related to, or unclear if related to, the closure device were included (category 2 or 3).

Results: Inpatients were more likely to undergo closure with CACD than with MG (77.7% vs 59.8%, p=.007). The most common etiology for intervention was embolization for acute hemorrhage in both groups with a significantly higher rate in the CACD group (68.1% vs. 53.9%, p=.002). The CACD was used in more cases that utilized general anesthesia (18.2% vs. 3%, p=.003). Closure with MG had a higher technical success rate (100% vs. 95.7%, p= .035) and higher procedural success (99% vs. 92.6%, p=.022). There was no significant difference in mild (1% vs. 3.2%, p=.35), moderate (2.9% vs. 0%, p=.25) and severe (0% vs. 1.1%, p=.48) AE between the MG and CACD groups, respectively. There was a single life-threatening AE in the MG group (1% vs. 0%, p=1) and a single procedure related mortality in the CACD group (1.1% vs. 0%, p=.48).

Conclusion: Both MG and CACD had high success rates although MG was significantly higher. There was no difference between the devices in adverse event rates.