S M Koerber1, T Loethen2, M Turagam3, J Payne2, R Weachter2, G Flaker2, M R Gold4, S Gautam2. 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.
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.
Authors: Christos Iavazzo; Ioannis D Gkegkes; Evridiki K Vouloumanou; Ioannis Mamais; George Peppas; Matthew E Falagas Journal: Am Surg Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Arnold J Greenspon; Jasmine D Patel; Edmund Lau; Jorge A Ochoa; Daniel R Frisch; Reginald T Ho; Behzad B Pavri; Steven M Kurtz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Pauline T Truong; Freddy Abnousi; Celina M Yong; Allen Hayashi; James A Runkel; Theressa Phillips; Ivo A Olivotto Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Muhammad R Sohail; Daniel Z Uslan; Akbar H Khan; Paul A Friedman; David L Hayes; Walter R Wilson; James M Steckelberg; Sarah Stoner; Larry M Baddour Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-04-23 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Heather Bloom; Brian Heeke; Angel Leon; Fernando Mera; David Delurgio; John Beshai; Jonathan Langberg Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Didier Klug; Mamadou Balde; Dominique Pavin; Françoise Hidden-Lucet; Jacques Clementy; Nicolas Sadoul; Jean Luc Rey; Gilles Lande; Arnaud Lazarus; Jacques Victor; Claude Barnay; Bruno Grandbastien; Salem Kacet Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-08-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J C Lekkerkerker; C van Nieuwkoop; S A Trines; J G van der Bom; A Bernards; E T van de Velde; M Bootsma; K Zeppenfeld; J W Jukema; J-W Borleffs; M J Schalij; L van Erven Journal: Heart Date: 2008-11-26 Impact factor: 5.994