Trial reportBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Efficacy and safety of negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices pocket infection.
Trial report in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) pocket infection, eliminating the need for CIED and leads extraction.
methodsThe NPWT cohort consisted of 42 patients with CIED infection who were treated with NPWT from 2013 to 2023. Among them, 3 patients had a systemic infection and 1 patient had incomplete data. We performed a case-control study in which the NPWT group was compared with the conservative treatment group (40 patients). Main outcomes included failure rate (CIED/lead extraction during the 1-year follow-up, 30-day mortality/chronic infection, or infection-related mortality/recurrence) and infection-free time, with cure defined as absence of failure criteria.
resultsA total of 38 patients with pocket infections were treated with NPWT from 2013 to 2023. NPWT was curative in 78.9% (n = 30 of 38) of patients who remained free of infection [median follow-up 12.63 months, interquartile range (IQR): 12.30-34.10 months]. Compared with patients who were treated conservatively, the two groups demonstrated balanced baseline characteristics. Patients who were treated with NPWT had a significantly higher cure rate (78.9% vs. 55.0%, n = 22 of 40; p = 0.025) and a longer mean infection-free time at the 1-year follow-up (338.00 vs. 285.20 days, p = 0.034).
conclusionNPWT is an effective alternative for patients with CIED pocket infections who are unsuitable or unwilling to undergo CIED and leads extraction.
trial registrationThis study was approved by the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Clinicaltrials.gov number: ChiCTR2300073560) on July 07, 2023.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.