Key result
Heart band compression tool linked to ~97% lower odds of postoperative skin erosion vs adhesive tape.
Why the study?
Pressure dressings with adhesive tape prevent pocket haematoma after CIED procedures but can cause skin erosion, prompting evaluation of the novel Heart band compression tool.
Does a novel compression tool reduce postoperative complications compared to conventional adhesive tape in patients undergoing CIED procedures?
Cohort (n=532)
No
Does a novel compression tool reduce postoperative complications compared to conventional adhesive tape in patients undergoing CIED procedures?
Odds Ratio: 0.03 (95% CI 0.01–0.26)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.4% vs 9.6%
p-value: p=<0.01
A specialized compression tool provides comparable haematoma prevention to conventional adhesive tape but significantly reduces the incidence of skin erosion after CIED procedures.
BACKGROUND: Pocket 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. METHODS: Among 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. RESULTS: Skin 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). CONCLUSION: The 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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kawase et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation or generator replacement (n=532). Heart band compression tool vs. Conventional pressure dressing with adhesive tape was evaluated on Skin erosion (component of primary complication endpoint) (OR 0.03, 95% CI <0.01 to 0.26, p=<0.01). The Heart band compression tool significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative skin erosion compared to conventional adhesive tape (0.4% vs 9.6%, OR 0.03, p<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: