ArticleHerzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie2015
[Prevention of pocket-related complications following heart rhythm device implantation. D-Stat Hemostat™ versus vacuum drainage].
Article in Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Pocket related complications following cardiac electronic device implantation in patients receiving anticoagulation and/or dual antiplatelet therapy: prospective evaluation of different preventive strategies.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPocket hematoma is a common complication after heart rhythm device implantation (HRD) in patients receiving anticoagulation and/or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT).
methodsWe conducted a prospective case-control study and enrolled all patients admitted for HRD receiving anticoagulation or DAPT. Participants received D-Stat (a mixture of collagen and thrombin) into the pectoral pocket and were compared with an age- and gender-matched group receiving a vacuum drainage system. The primary endpoint was a composite of hematoma needing evacuation and pocket infection.
resultsWe included a total of 164 patients (mean age 73 ± 10.7 years; 118 [72 %] men). In all, 82 patients (50 %) received D-stat and 82 (50 %) vacuum drainage. There were 83 (51 %) patients who were treated with anticoagulation, 69 (42 %) patients received DAPT, and 11 (7 %) patients both. The primary endpoint occurred in 14.5 % (12/82) of patients in the D-Stat group and 0 % (0/82) of patients in the drainage group (p < 0.01). The use of D-Stat solution was associated with an increased incidence of pocket hematoma requiring evacuation (8.5 % versus 0 %; p = 0.01), and tended to an increased rate of pocket infections (6.1 % versus 0 %; p = 0.06). Postoperative immunoglobulin E levels (106 ± 219 IU/ml [D-Stat] versus 117 ± 189 IU/ml [drainage]) and increase of C-reactive protein (D-Stat: ∆19 mg/l versus drainage: ∆21 mg/l) were similar in both groups (p = 0.7 and p = 0.5, respectively).
conclusionsAdministration of D-Stat solution is associated with a higher rate of pocket hematoma requiring reoperation in a high risk population receiving anticoagulation and/or DAPT. The observed rate of pocket infections in the D-Stat group is a matter of concern.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.