From the Department of Clinical & Experimental Cardiology, Heart Center, Amsterdam Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands (T.F.B., A.-F.B.E.Q., A.A.W., R.E.K.); and Helmsley Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (M.A.M., C.P., S.R.D., V.R., J.M.W.).
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2017 Jan;10(1):e004663. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.116.004663.
Alternative techniques to the traditional 3-incision subcutaneous implantation of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator may offer procedural and cosmetic advantages. We evaluate 4 different implant techniques of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.
Patients implanted with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators from 2 hospitals between 2009 and 2016 were included. Four implantation techniques were used depending on physician preference and patient characteristics. The 2- and 3-incision techniques both place the pulse generator subcutaneously, but the 2-incision technique omits the superior parasternal incision for lead positioning. Submuscular implantation places the pulse generator underneath the serratus anterior muscle and subfascial implantation underneath the fascial layer on the anterior side of the serratus anterior muscle. Reported outcomes include perioperative parameters, defibrillation testing, and clinical follow-up. A total of 246 patients were included with a median age of 47 years and 37% female. Fifty-four patients were implanted with the 3-incision technique, 118 with the 2-incision technique, 38 with submuscular, and 37 with subfascial. Defibrillation test efficacy and shock lead impedance during testing did not differ among the groups; respectively, P=0.46 and P=0.18. The 2-incision technique resulted in the shortest procedure duration and time-to-hospital discharge compared with the other techniques (P<0.001). A total of 18 complications occurred, but there were no significant differences between the groups (P=0.21). All infections occurred in subcutaneous implants (3-incision, n=3; 2-incision, n=4). In the 2-incision group, there were no lead displacements.
The presented implantation techniques are feasible alternatives to the standard 3-incision subcutaneous implantation, and the 2-incision technique resulted in shortest procedure duration.
传统的皮下植入式心律转复除颤器三切口皮下植入术的替代技术可能具有操作和美容优势。我们评估了皮下植入式心律转复除颤器的 4 种不同植入技术。
2009 年至 2016 年期间,我们纳入了在 2 家医院植入皮下植入式心律转复除颤器的患者。根据医生的偏好和患者的特点,使用了 4 种植入技术。二切口技术和三切口技术均将脉冲发生器皮下放置,但二切口技术省略了用于导联定位的胸骨旁上切口。胸肌下植入将脉冲发生器置于前锯肌下方,筋膜下植入将脉冲发生器置于前锯肌筋膜层下方。报告的结果包括围手术期参数、除颤测试和临床随访。共纳入 246 例患者,中位年龄 47 岁,37%为女性。54 例患者采用三切口技术植入,118 例采用二切口技术植入,38 例采用胸肌下植入,37 例采用筋膜下植入。除颤测试效果和测试期间的电击导联阻抗在各组之间无差异;分别为 P=0.46 和 P=0.18。与其他技术相比,二切口技术的手术时间和住院时间最短(P<0.001)。共发生 18 例并发症,但各组之间无显著差异(P=0.21)。所有感染均发生在皮下植入物(三切口,n=3;二切口,n=4)。在二切口组中,没有导联移位。
所介绍的植入技术是标准三切口皮下植入术的可行替代方法,二切口技术的手术时间最短。