Effects of envelopes on cardiac implantable electronic device pocket healing: A head-to-head preclinical evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The healing response to cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation results in inflammation that can lead to fibrous pocket formation, which may disrupt pocket healing or complicate future interventions. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess CIED pocket healing with use of the second-generation TYRX absorbable antibacterial envelope (T2), the next-generation (NG) TYRX absorbable antibacterial envelope under development, and the CanGaroo® extracellular matrix envelope (ECM) compared to no envelope. METHODS: A total of 110 CIEDs were implanted in an ovine model, either with (T2, NG, or ECM) or without envelopes. Histopathologic and morphometric analyses were completed at several timepoints after implant (3 days, 7 days, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks). An independent pathologist completed a blinded histopathology assessment of the pockets. RESULTS: TYRX (T2/NG) pockets showed similar inflammatory and healing profiles to controls with more rapid provisional matrix formation compared to controls and ECM. ECM pockets exhibited increased acute (3 and 7 days) and chronic (24 weeks) inflammation. T2/NG had almost complete (T2) or complete (NG) absorption by week 12. ECM remained present at week 24 and was associated with significantly thicker capsules (ECM 0.80 ± 0.14 mm; NG 0.37 ± 0.10 mm; control 0.56 ± 0.17 mm). CONCLUSION: Compared to ECM, pockets with TYRX showed less inflammation, more rapid provisional matrix formation, faster absorption, and thinner capsules. TYRX pockets had low inflammation comparable to controls with accelerated provisional matrix deposition and tissue adhesion. The healing response to CIEDs used with TYRX fosters the formation of a well-healed pocket, which may bring patient benefit beyond its proven infection reduction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".