Key result
The novel pocket compression device did not significantly reduce the incidence of pocket hematoma at 24 hours post-procedure compared to conventional sandbag compression (26.7% vs. 19.7%, p = 0.224).
Why the study?
Pocket hematoma is a common and serious complication after CIED implantation, and this study aimed to evaluate whether a novel pocket compression device could reduce its occurrence.
Does a novel compression vest with a pressure cuff reduce the incidence of pocket hematoma compared to conventional sandbag compression in patients undergoing CIED implantation?
RCT (n=242)
Open-label with blinded endpoint assessment (PROBE)
Computer-generated
Yes
Does a novel compression vest with a pressure cuff reduce the incidence of pocket hematoma compared to conventional sandbag compression in patients undergoing CIED implantation?
Absolute Event Rate: 26.7% vs 19.7%
p-value: p=0.224
A novel pocket compression vest is a viable alternative to conventional sandbag compression, showing comparable efficacy in preventing pocket hematomas after CIED implantation.
Novel vest yields similar hematoma rates to sandbag compression; supports it as viable alternative but leaves optimal strategy open.
Pocket hematoma is a common and serious complication following cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation, contributing to significant morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a novel pocket compression device in reducing pocket hematoma occurrence. We enrolled 242 patients undergoing CIED implantation, randomly assigning them to receive either the novel compression vest with a pressure cuff or conventional sandbag compression. Pocket hematomas were categorized as grade 1 (mild), grade 2 (moderate), or grade 3 (severe, requiring intervention or prolonged hospitalization). The primary endpoint, incidence of pocket hematoma 24 h post-procedure, did not significantly differ between the two groups (26.7% vs. 19.7%, p = 0.224). Rates of grade 2 hematoma were similarly low and comparable (2.5% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.368), with no grade 3 hematomas observed. Skin reactions and patient comfort were similar between groups. The sole predictor for hematoma occurrence was current oral anticoagulation use. In conclusion, our study found a low incidence of clinically significant pocket hematomas. The novel pocket compression device showed comparable efficacy to conventional methods, suggesting it as a viable alternative for reducing post-procedural complications without additional adverse effects.Trial registration number: The study was registered in the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) at https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/ , with the identification number TCTR20230913005, date of first trial registration 13/09/2023.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prasertwitayakij et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation (n=242). Novel pocket compression device vs. Conventional 1-kg sandbag compression was evaluated on Incidence of pocket hematoma at 24 hours post-operation (p=0.224). The novel pocket compression device did not significantly reduce the incidence of pocket hematoma at 24 hours post-procedure compared to conventional sandbag compression (26.7% vs. 19.7%, p = 0.224).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: