SynthesisAnnals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc2026
Skin Closure Techniques After Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation and Their Impact on Pocket Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation, including pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy systems, is increasingly performed worldwide. Despite advances in implantation techniques, device pocket-related complications such as infection, hematoma, and wound dehiscence remain clinically important. The optimal skin closure technique for preventing these complications remains uncertain.
objectiveTo evaluate and compare the safety and effectiveness of different skin closure techniques following CIED implantation.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched from database inception to March 2026. Studies evaluating wound closure techniques after CIED implantation were included. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Primary outcomes included pocket infection, hematoma, and wound dehiscence.
resultsNine studies involving 1616 patients were included. Closure methods evaluated included conventional sutures, cyanoacrylate tissue adhesives, skin staplers, and noninvasive closure devices. Pooled analysis showed no significant difference in pocket infection between closure techniques (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58-1.42; p = 0.68; I
conclusionDifferent wound closure techniques following CIED implantation demonstrate comparable safety outcomes. Closure method selection may therefore be guided by operator preference, procedural efficiency, and cosmetic considerations.
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.