title: Pectoral cardioverter defibrillators: comparison of prepectoral and submuscular implantation techniques.
abstract: The purpose of this study was to compare the two techniques of pectoral ICD implantation, prepectoral and submuscular, performed by an electrophysiologist in the catheterization laboratory with use of general or local anesthesia in 45 consecutive patients. Over a period of 30 months, we implanted pectoral transvenous ICDs in 43 men and 2 women, aged 59 +/- 12 years, with use of general (n = 20) or local (n = 25) anesthesia in the catheterization laboratory. Patients had coronary (n = 30) or valvular (n = 4) disease, cardiomyopathy (n = 10) or no organic disease (n = 1), a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 31%, and presented with ventricular tachycardia (n = 40) or fibrillation (n = 5). One-lead ICD systems (18 Endotak, 10 Transvene/8 Sprint, 2 EnGuard) were used in 38 patients, 2-lead (5 Transvene, 1 EnGuard) systems in 6 patients, and 1 atrioventricular lead ICD system in 1 patient. The prepectoral technique was employed in 29 patients with adequate subcutaneous tissue, while the submuscular technique was used in 16 patients who had a thin layer of subcutaneous tissue. The defibrillation threshold averaged 9-10 J in both groups and there were no differences in pace/sense thresholds. All implants were entirely transvenous with no subcutaneous patch. Biphasic ICD devices were employed in all patients. Active or hot can devices were used in 39 patients. There were no complications, operative deaths, or infections. Patients were discharged at a mean of 3 days. All devices functioned well at predis-charge testing. Over 14 +/- 8 months, 20 patients received appropriate device therapy (antitachycardia pacing or shocks). No late complications occurred. One patient died at 3 months of pump failure; there were no sudden deaths. In conclusion, for exclusive pectoral implantation of transvenous ICDs, electrophysiologists should master both prepectoral and submuscular techniques. One can thus avoid potential skin erosion or need for abdominal implantation in patients with a thin layer of subcutaneous tissue. Finally, there are no differences in pacing or defibrillation thresholds between the two techniques.
authors: Patras University, Rio, Patras, Greece.
authors: A S
authors: AS
authors: Manolis
authors: J
authors: J
authors: Chiladakis
authors: V
authors: V
authors: Vassilikos
authors: T
authors: T
authors: Maounis
authors: D V
authors: DV
authors: Cokkinos
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000768:Anesthesia, General; D000772:Anesthesia, Local; D017147:Defibrillators, Implantable / Q000009:adverse effects; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010369:Pectoralis Muscles / Q000601:surgery*; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D017180:Tachycardia, Ventricular / Q000628:therapy; D014693:Ventricular Fibrillation / Q000628:therapy