Cardiac device implant wound closure with a novel low‐density suture spacing single layer method. Issue 4 (24th February 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yao, Tianbao; Nie, Peng; Sun, Jiateng; Jin, Yan; Zang, Minhua; Zhou, Shenghen; Zhang, Qi; Mao, Jialiang; Pu, Jun
• Is Part Of: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. Volume 44:Issue 4(2021)
• Page Start: 595
• Page End: 600
• Publication Date: 2021-02-24
• Subjects: cardiac device implantation -- pocket related complications -- single‐layer suture -- wound closure -- wound healing; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.14184
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0147-8389

Abstract

Abstract: Background: To establish a novel time‐saving and safe suture method for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. Methods: From January 2017 to April 2020, a total of 1317 patients scheduled for CIED procedure were consecutively enrolled in this study. Wound closure of all patients were prospectively assigned either to low‐density suture spacing single layer suture group (single‐layer group) or traditional two layer suture group (two‐layer group). The effects of two closure methods on wound healing and pocket related complications were compared. Results: There were no significant differences in age, gender, BMI, comorbid diseases (diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, and chronic kidney disease), and antiplatelet or anticoagulant drug use between the two groups. The number of suture stitches in the single‐layer group was significantly less than that in the two‐layer group [3.03(3–4) vs. 7.17(7–10), p < .001], the suture time in the single‐layer group was significantly shorter than that in the two‐layer group [190.57(167–256) s vs. 493.36(452–655) s, p < .001], and the incidence of clinically significant hematoma in the single‐layer group was comparable to that in the two‐layer group (0.7% vs. 0.3%, p = .742). Additionally, there were no significant differences in the incidence of pocket infection, dehiscence and keloid between the two groups. Conclusion: Novel single‐layer suture with low‐density suture spacing is feasible and associated with a low incidence of wound dehiscence or infection for CIED implantation.