WORLD JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY
Fri, Apr 19, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 8, Issue 2 (2019)
WJPS 2019, 8(2): 163-170 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Kim S, Seo B F, Choi Y, Oh Y, Kim J Y. Subpectoral Implantation of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device: A Reasonable Alternative for the Conventional Prepectoral Approach. WJPS 2019; 8 (2) :163-170
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-461-en.html
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-461-en.html
1- Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea;
2- Department of Plastic Surgery, Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
3- Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea; , oys@catholic.ac.kr
4- Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
2- Department of Plastic Surgery, Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
3- Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea; , oys@catholic.ac.kr
4- Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Abstract: (3745 Views)
BACKGROUND
The prepectoral implantation technique has been the standard procedure for cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED). However, it cannot be performed in such patients with thin skin or patients with cosmetic concerns. This study was designed to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of the subpectoral compared to the prepectoral approach.
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective, nonrandomized comparison of the prepectoral (234 cases) and subpectoral approach (32 cases) in patients who received CIED implantation at a tertiary center between July 2012 and May 2015. We compared lead characteristics, procedure time and complications between the subpectoral and prepectoral approach.
RESULTS
In the subpectoral group, two complications were observed, whereas six complications were found in the prepectoral group (2/32 vs. 6/234, respectively, p=0.25). In the subpectoral group, one patient developed wound infection and the others were safely conducted without any complications. In the prepectoral group, two patients developed hemopericardium, three developed pocket hematoma requiring surgical revision, and one developed a pneumothorax. Procedure time in the subpectoral group took longer than that in the prepectoral group (150±50 min versus 91±49 min, p=0.06). In lead characteristics, there were no significant differences between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
The subpectoral approach is technically feasible and non-inferior to the prepectoral approach, in the aspect of complication and lead characteristics, but seemed to take more procedure time. The subpectoral approach is a more reasonable choice for selected patients in whom the prepectoral approach is not feasible or in individuals who have cosmetic concerns.
The prepectoral implantation technique has been the standard procedure for cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED). However, it cannot be performed in such patients with thin skin or patients with cosmetic concerns. This study was designed to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of the subpectoral compared to the prepectoral approach.
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective, nonrandomized comparison of the prepectoral (234 cases) and subpectoral approach (32 cases) in patients who received CIED implantation at a tertiary center between July 2012 and May 2015. We compared lead characteristics, procedure time and complications between the subpectoral and prepectoral approach.
RESULTS
In the subpectoral group, two complications were observed, whereas six complications were found in the prepectoral group (2/32 vs. 6/234, respectively, p=0.25). In the subpectoral group, one patient developed wound infection and the others were safely conducted without any complications. In the prepectoral group, two patients developed hemopericardium, three developed pocket hematoma requiring surgical revision, and one developed a pneumothorax. Procedure time in the subpectoral group took longer than that in the prepectoral group (150±50 min versus 91±49 min, p=0.06). In lead characteristics, there were no significant differences between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
The subpectoral approach is technically feasible and non-inferior to the prepectoral approach, in the aspect of complication and lead characteristics, but seemed to take more procedure time. The subpectoral approach is a more reasonable choice for selected patients in whom the prepectoral approach is not feasible or in individuals who have cosmetic concerns.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
