Abstract 15215: Pro-pace: Prospective Randomized Trial of Skin Closure for Pacemaker Implant
Introduction: Pacemaker implantation is a standard technique with largely traditional knowledge and has been performed for over 50 years. Despite its huge distribution, there are hardly any randomized trials regarding technical aspects such as material of skin closure. Hypothesis: The aim was to compare if resorbable subcuticular suture skin is superior in terms of clinical or cosmetic endpoints vs. non-resorbable suture. Methods: We performed a prospective randomized comparison of non-resorbable subcuticular suture to suture with resorbable material for pacemaker implantation with indications according to current guidelines. All consecutive patients undergoing placement of pacemakers were eligible. Follow-up was 1 year. Scars were observed at day 1, week 6 and 1 year after surgery. Clinically relevant primary endpoints were: bleeding, infection or revision. Secondary endpoints recorded at day 1 were: local hematoma formation > 10cm diameter, wound width, insufficient skin closure. Secondary endpoints at 6 weeks and 1 year: scar width, pathological scarring with kelloid, insufficient skin closure. Cosmetic results were assessed using “ P atient and O bserver S car A ssessment score (POSA)“. Results: We included 115 pts. (77 male) and performed non-resorbable skin closure in 50 cases. There were no differences in clinical characteristics between patient groups. At 1 day after implantation was no difference between regarding clinical or cosmetic endpoints (Scar width P=0.43, POSA P=0.44). At 6 weeks and 1 year post implantation, there were similarly no differences in clinical or cosmetic endpoints between both groups (Scar width P=0.54, POSA P=0.45, figure). No relevant clinical endpoints (bleeding, infection, revision) were associated to either technique of skin closure. Conclusions: Based on the present prospective randomized study, suture material does not influence clinical or cosmetic results of pacemaker implantation.