ArticleCureus2022
Strategies for the Long-Term Preservation of Site for Future Implantation of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIEDs): Two Decades of Experience.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is an art of science. As the volume of implantation has increased worldwide, so has the rate of complications. Infection, fibrosis, lead and device erosion, lead displacement, right ventricle perforation, lead fracture, and insulation break are the common complications in the implantation process. This exposes the patient for reopening and threatens the implantation for further complication due to infection, fibrosis of veins, failure to retrieve the implanted wire, and failure to re-implant the device on the same site. We slightly changed our implantation technique to preserve the implantation site for future implantation and reduce the rate of complication in the index implantation. Methods This randomized control trial was conducted from January 2016 to September 2019 at Hayatabad Medical Complex Peshawar, Pakistan. A consecutive sampling technique was used to obtain a sample size of 602 patients keeping a 95% confidence interval and a 5% margin error. We adopted a strategy to take prick, for implantation of devices, inside the pocket, which reduces the number of sutures, hastens the procedure, prevents erosion, and minimizes the chance of subclavian crush syndrome and insulation break. We also selected the minimum possible length of leads. This will possibly decrease the chances of cumbersome fibrosis around the lead and device and will make future implantation convenient. Results There was a total of 602 procedures in the study period. About 253 (42%) procedures were done in the newly adopted strategy and 349 (58%) were performed in the conventional way. Our complication rate grossly reduces in the novel way of implantation in which we took our prick inside the pocket. Conclusion A slight modification in the implantation of CIEDs not only prevents the rate of complication in the index implantation but will also possibly preserve the site for future implantation.
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.