Current strategies to minimize postoperative hematoma formation in patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device implantation: A review

Successful transcatheter arterial embolization treatment for chest wall haematoma following permanent pacemaker implantation: A case report

BACKGROUND

Haematoma is one of the main complications associated with pacemaker implantation. Pseudoaneurysm is a rare condition that is not easy to identify and is often overlooked.

CASE SUMMARY

A female patient diagnosed with high-grade atrioventricular block underwent permanent pacemaker implantation. During the operation, puncturing a small branch of the right subclavian artery developed into a pseudoaneurysm and resulted in further haematoma formation. Conventional treatment of compression haemostasis and haemostatic drugs was not effective. A series of timely transcatheter arterial embolizations avoided serious complications.

CONCLUSION

More possible conditions should be taken into consideration as haematoma is discovered, and timely treatment might prevent severe adverse events.

Predictors of pocket hematoma after cardiac implantable electronic device surgery: A nationwide cohort study

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Prospective randomized trial of skin closure for pacemaker implantation: absorbable vs. non-absorbable suture : PRO-PACE

BACKGROUND

Pacemaker implantations have been performed for > 50 years, reaching 1.25 million implants worldwide per year. Despite this, only few randomized studies exist regarding technical aspects of the implantation procedure-in particular, wound closure. Accordingly, the authors compared absorbable vs. non-absorbable suture regarding wound healing.

METHODS

Consecutive patients scheduled for de novo pacemaker implantation without defibrillation therapy were prospectively randomized into two groups: non-absorbable (Prolene®, Ethicon Inc.) or absorbable suture (Monocryl®, Ethicon Inc.). The wound was systematically assessed for cosmetic outcome at 1 day, 6 weeks, and 1 year post implantation using the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS). Adverse events noted included bleeding, pocket hematoma, infection, suture insufficiency, and revision surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 114 patients (mean age: 79 ± 10 years, n = 60 male) were randomized into the two groups. Of these, 105 completed follow-up (lost to follow-up: 7.9%). Groups were comparable for clinical characteristics or use of oral anticoagulants. There was no difference in cosmetic outcome and incidence of adverse events at any follow-up visit. POSAS scores were: 1 day: 1.4 ± 0.4 vs. 1.3 ± 0.4, P = 0.44, 6 weeks: 1.4 ± 0.6 vs. 1.4 ± 0.7, P = 0.57; 1 year: 1.4 ± 1.4 vs. 2.1 ± 3, P = 0.60. No pocket hematoma or infection occurred in either group. No additional surgery was necessary for local findings. Retrospectively, scar development was straight in the Prolene® group and slightly wavy with Monocryl®.

CONCLUSION

Suture material does not influence wound healing as represented by the cosmetic result and the occurrence of adverse events. The choice of suture material used should be left to the physician's discretion.

Evaluation of a novel mechanical compression device for hematoma prevention and wound cosmesis after CIED implantation

BACKGROUND

An important complication of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) 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.

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 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 = <0.01). There were lower MSS scores in the PR group after 2 weeks (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated the safety of PR application and removal. In addition, PR appears to lower post-operative skin pliability, which could improve wound healing. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.