Key result
A novel mechanical compression device (PressRite) after CIED implantation resulted in a hematoma rate of 5.9% compared to 14.8% with standard care (p=NS), and improved postoperative skin pliability.
Why the study?
Hematoma and device infection are important complications of CIED implantation, motivating the evaluation of a novel mechanical compression device for hematoma prevention and cosmetic outcomes.
Does a novel mechanical compression device (PressRite) improve hematoma prevention and cosmetic outcomes in patients undergoing CIED implantation?
RCT (n=105)
Open-label
randomized
No
Does a novel mechanical compression device (PressRite) improve hematoma prevention and cosmetic outcomes in patients undergoing CIED implantation?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The PressRite mechanical compression device is safe and improves postoperative skin pliability and scar appearance after CIED implantation, though it did not significantly reduce hematoma rates.
BACKGROUND: An important complication of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) implantation is the development of hematoma and device infection. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate a novel mechanical compression device for hematoma prevention and cosmetic outcomes following CIED implantation. METHODS: An open, prospective, randomized, single-center clinical trial was performed in patients undergoing CIED implantation. Patients were randomized to receive a novel mechanical compression device (PressRite, PR) or to receive the standard of care post device implantation. Skin pliability was measured with a calibrated durometer; the surgical site was evaluated using the Manchester Scar Scale (MSS) by a blinded plastic surgeon and the Patient and Observer Scar Scale (POSAS). Performance of PR was assessed through pressure measurements, standardized scar scales and tolerability. RESULTS: From the total of 114 patients evaluated for enrollment, 105 patients were eligible for analysis. Fifty-one patients were randomized to management group (PR) and 54 to the control group. No patients required early removal or experienced adverse effects from PR application. There were 11 hematomas (14.8% vs. 5.9% in the control and PR group respectively, p = NS). The control group had higher post procedure durometer readings in the surgical site when compared with the PR group (7.50 ± 3.45 vs. 5.37 ± 2.78; p = < .01). There were lower MSS scores in the PR group after 2 weeks (p = .03). CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated the safety of PR application and removal. In addition, PR appears to improve postoperative skin pliability, which could facilitate wound healing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rojas et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation (n=105). PressRite mechanical compression device vs. Standard of care was evaluated on Hematoma incidence (p=NS). A novel mechanical compression device (PressRite) after CIED implantation resulted in a hematoma rate of 5.9% compared to 14.8% with standard care (p=NS), and improved postoperative skin pliability.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: