ArticleOpen heart2025
Efficacy of a novel compression tool in preventing complications following device implantation.
Article in Open heart, 2025. 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.
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPocket haematoma is a common complication of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures and may lead to pain, delayed healing, surgical evacuation or infection. Although pressure dressings with adhesive tapes are widely used for haematoma prevention, they can cause skin erosion. Therefore, this study evaluated the efficacy of the Heart band, a novel compression tool, in preventing device implantation-related complications in patients who underwent CIED procedures.
methodsAmong 663 consecutive patients who underwent CIED procedures, we retrospectively analysed 532 (compression tool use, n=283; adhesive tape use, n=249) who underwent CIED implantation or generator replacement between April 2019 and March 2021. Either adhesive tape (2019-2020) or the compression tool (2020-2021) was used in the patients. Compression was applied for 2 days postoperatively, and recompression was performed at the physician's discretion if haematoma-related swelling was noted. The primary endpoints were postoperative complications including recompression, haematoma and skin erosion. Intervention-requiring haematoma (IRH) was defined as haematomas for which transfusion or surgical evacuation was necessary.
resultsSkin erosion occurred significantly less often in the compression tool group (0.4% vs 9.6%, p<0.01), whereas there were no significant intergroup differences in the rates of recompression (19.4% (compression tool group) vs 16.1% (adhesive tape group), p=0.36) and IRH (0.7% (compression tool group) vs 0% (adhesive tape group), p=0.50). These trends were consistent in high-risk subgroups, including patients receiving antithrombotic therapy, with diabetes or with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator/cardiac resynchronisation therapy-defibrillator. Multivariate analysis identified the compression tool as an independent negative predictor of skin erosion (OR 0.03, 95% CI <0.01 to 0.26, p<0.01).
conclusionThe compression tool had efficacy comparable to that of conventional pressure dressing with adhesive tape in preventing IRH. Compression tools are also associated with a lower incidence of skin erosion.
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.