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 · 2010
Comparison of skin adhesive and absorbable intracutaneous suture for the implantation of cardiac rhythm devices.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Spencker Sebastian, Coban Nalan, Koch Lydia, Schirdewan Alexander, Mueller Dirk
Аннотация
AIMS: Wound healing is a major determent in the post-surgical course of patients (pts) after pacemaker (PM) and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation. Insufficient closure may lead to serious complications with pocket infections leading to the device's explantation as the worst case scenario. In addition to the different types of suture and suture clips, a novel topical skin adhesive containing 2-octyl-cyanoacrylate is commercially available.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Over a period of 18 months, we prospectively assigned all cases of PM, ICD, and loop recorder implants either to skin adhesive (Group 1) or to absorbable intracutaneous polydioxanon suture (Group 2). Data were analysed with respect to operation time, wound infections, and healing disorders. One hundred and eighty-three pts were randomized into Group 1 [71 PMs, 60 ICD, 15 cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), 11 loop recorders, and 26 generator replacements]. One hundred and eighty-five pts were assigned to Group 2 (62 PMs, 70 ICD, 30 CRT, 7 loop recorders, and 16 generator replacements). There were no differences regarding sex, diabetes, renal insufficiency, corticosteroid therapy, oral anticoagulants, and acetylsalicylic asa/clopidogrel (P = n.s.). For the significantly higher amount of CRT devices (P < 0.05) in Group 2, the procedure times are given for surgeries except CRT. It was 49.1 ± 27.7 min for Group 1 and 53.4 ± 31.9 min for Group 2 (P = n.s.). Adverse events as insufficient closure, major and minor bleeding, pocket haematoma, erythema, incrustation, dehiscence, keloid, and explantation due to infection occurred significantly more often in the adhesive group (P = 0.02). The greatest impact on this result had early adverse events as insufficient closure, wound incrustation, and inflammation (9.3 vs. 6.0%; P = 0.02). We did not find any difference in long-term adverse events, infections in particular (2.7 vs. 1.6%; P = 0.47).
CONCLUSION: This study shows no benefit using skin adhesive in comparison to absorbable intracutaneous suture regarding surgery times for the implantation of cardiac rhythm devices. The rate of early adverse events after wound closure is higher after skin adhesive but no difference in long-term adverse events occurred.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Over a period of 18 months, we prospectively assigned all cases of PM, ICD, and loop recorder implants either to skin adhesive (Group 1) or to absorbable intracutaneous polydioxanon suture (Group 2). Data were analysed with respect to operation time, wound infections, and healing disorders. One hundred and eighty-three pts were randomized into Group 1 [71 PMs, 60 ICD, 15 cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), 11 loop recorders, and 26 generator replacements]. One hundred and eighty-five pts were assigned to Group 2 (62 PMs, 70 ICD, 30 CRT, 7 loop recorders, and 16 generator replacements). There were no differences regarding sex, diabetes, renal insufficiency, corticosteroid therapy, oral anticoagulants, and acetylsalicylic asa/clopidogrel (P = n.s.). For the significantly higher amount of CRT devices (P < 0.05) in Group 2, the procedure times are given for surgeries except CRT. It was 49.1 ± 27.7 min for Group 1 and 53.4 ± 31.9 min for Group 2 (P = n.s.). Adverse events as insufficient closure, major and minor bleeding, pocket haematoma, erythema, incrustation, dehiscence, keloid, and explantation due to infection occurred significantly more often in the adhesive group (P = 0.02). The greatest impact on this result had early adverse events as insufficient closure, wound incrustation, and inflammation (9.3 vs. 6.0%; P = 0.02). We did not find any difference in long-term adverse events, infections in particular (2.7 vs. 1.6%; P = 0.47).
CONCLUSION: This study shows no benefit using skin adhesive in comparison to absorbable intracutaneous suture regarding surgery times for the implantation of cardiac rhythm devices. The rate of early adverse events after wound closure is higher after skin adhesive but no difference in long-term adverse events occurred.