ArticleActa Cardiologica Sinica2019
Effectiveness of a Non-Taped Compression Dress in Patients Receiving Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.
Article in Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of pocket compression device on pocket hematoma after cardiac implantable electronic device implantation.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Risk Factors and Preventing Strategies of Pocket Hematoma After Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation: A Systematic Review.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Efficacy of a novel compression tool in preventing complications following device implantation.Open heart · 2025Article
- Addressing Complications in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: A Guideline to Prevention of CIED Infection.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- The Removal, Excision, Sterilization, and Quarantine (RESQ) Method is a Feasible Alternative Treatment for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2023Article
- Article
- EHRA expert consensus statement and practical guide on optimal implantation technique for conventional pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS).Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHematoma and skin damage are not uncommon after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) placement. The use of conventional hemostatic gauze and tape seems to be suboptimal in controlling these complications. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a novel compression dress with a special pad and elastic bands for postoperative care.
methodsA total of 175 CIED recipients were randomly divided into two groups: an experimental group with 85 patients who used a non-taped compression dress and a control group with 90 patients who used conventional gauze ball and elastic tapes. Skin integrity, hematoma, and oozing were compared between these two groups within 7 days after surgery.
resultsThe mean age of the patients was 71.2 ± 13.3 years, and 83 (47.4%) were male. The results of the experimental vs. control group were as follows: skin integrity - 96.5% vs. 86.7% (p < 0.05); hematoma - 0% vs. 7.8% (p < 0.05); and oozing - 1.2% vs. 7.8% (p < 0.05). All observed endpoints were better in the experimental group.
conclusionsThe use of a non-taped compression dress was associated with less unfavorable outcomes in terms of skin integrity and hemostasis.
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.