Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019 Mar;54(2):171-176. doi: 10.1007/s10840-018-0457-5. Epub 2018 Oct 15.

Noninvasive tissue adhesive for cardiac implantable electronic device pocket closure: the TAPE pilot study.

Author information

1
Division of Cardiology, Medical University of South Carolina, 114 Doughty Street - MSC 592, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. koerbers@musc.edu.
2
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.
3
Ichan School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
4
Division of Cardiology, Medical University of South Carolina, 114 Doughty Street - MSC 592, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Device infection is a serious complication of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). Ensuring complete pocket closure can be time consuming, but remains vital to prevent infection. The Zip® Surgical Skin Closure (ZIP) is a noninvasive adhesive device applied to the skin as an alternative to subcuticular sutures for skin closure. We hypothesized that using this device would decrease pocket closure times without increasing the risk of pocket infections. This is a single center, retrospective cohort study to compare pocket closure times and infection rates between ZIP and standard suture for CIED pocket closure.

METHODS:

Two separate groups of consecutive new intravenous implants, upgrades, and pulse generator replacements from October 2015 to April 2017 were included. A total of 175 patients were included, using either ZIP (n = 80) or suture (n = 95). Total procedure time (local anesthetic to dressing application) and pocket closure time (fascial suture to dressing application) were compared. Pocket infections were defined as infections leading to CIED extraction or wound dehiscence requiring repeat procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using chi square test and Student's t test.

RESULTS:

Pocket closure time and procedure time were significantly shorter for the ZIP group (14.9 ± 6.8 vs 20.1 ± 11.09 min, p = 0.0003) and (65.02 ± 30.4 vs 83.83 ± 40.3 min, p = 0.0008), respectively. No pocket infections occurred in the Zip group, while the suture group had 2:1 wound dehiscence and 1 pocket infection.

CONCLUSION:

The ZIP device resulted in significantly shorter pocket closure and procedure times without increasing device pocket infections.

KEYWORDS:

Cardiac device implant; Device pocket closure

PMID:
30324225
DOI:
10.1007/s10840-018-0457-5

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center