Background: Venous closure devices (VCDs) are being increasingly used after femoral venous access to facilitate recovery, but their comparative efficacy and safety versus manual compression or figure-of-eight suture remain uncertain. Because femoral venous access management is influenced by patient-related and procedural factors, VCDs may contribute to a more personalized postprocedural recovery strategy. Objective: Evaluation of the impact of VCDs on procedural recovery and vascular complications in patients undergoing cardiac procedures via femoral venous access. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL through to April 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VCDs with manual compression and/or figure-of-eight suture. Primary efficacy outcomes were time to hemostasis (TTH), time to ambulation (TTA), time to discharge (TTD), and time to discharge eligibility (TTDe). Safety outcomes were major and minor vascular complications. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2, and certainty of evidence assessed with GRADE. Random-effects models were used to pool standardized mean differences (SMDs) or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Seven RCTs (n = 948) were included. VCDs use significantly reduced TTH (SMD: −1.00; 95% CI: −1.57 to −0.42) and TTA (SMD: −1.50; 95% CI: −2.42 to −0.58). TTD showed a non-significant trend favoring VCDs (SMD: −0.99; 95% CI: −2.13 to 0.15), while TTDe was consistently shorter with VCDs across three trials. Major vascular complications were rare and similar between groups (RR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.09–1.89). Minor vascular complications were significantly reduced with VCDs (RR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.22–0.79). Conclusions: In patients requiring femoral venous access for interventional cardiology procedures, VCDs improve time to hemostasis and ambulation and reduce minor vascular complications without increasing major events. These findings support VCDs as an effective and safe strategy for venous closure.