Volume 8, Issue 2 (4-2019)                   wjps 2019, 8(2): 163-170 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
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
Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea;
Abstract:   (874 Views)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Full-Text [PDF 975 kb]   (367 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Article | Subject: General
Received: 2018/12/8 | Accepted: 2019/03/2 | Published: 2019/06/18

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

© 2020 All Rights Reserved | World Journal of Plastic Surgery

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb