Complications associated with pectoral cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: comparison of subcutaneous and submuscular approaches. Worldwide Jewel Investigators

Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA. MGold@Heart.ab.umd.edu

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare complications in a large cohort of patients undergoing pectoral cardioverter-defibrillator implantation with a subcutaneous or submuscular approach. BACKGROUND: Pectoral placement of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) pulse generators is now routine because of downsizing of these devices. subcutaneous implantation has been advocated by some because it is a simple surgical procedure comparable to pacemaker insertion. Others have favored submuscular insertion to avoid wound complications. These surgical approaches have not been compared previously. METHODS: The subjects for this study were 1,000 consecutive patients receiving a Medtronic Jewel ICD at 93 centers worldwide. Cumulative follow-up for all patients was 633.7 patient-years, with 64.9% of patients followed up for > or = 6 months. The complications evaluated were erosion, pocket hematoma, seroma, wound infection, dehiscence, device migration, lead fracture and dislodgment. RESULTS: Subcutaneous implantation was performed in 604 patients and submuscular implantation in the remaining 396. The median procedural times were shorter for subcutaneous implantation (p = 0.014). In addition, the cumulative percentage of patients free from erosion was greater for subcutaneous implantations (p = 0.03, 100% vs. 99.1% at 6 months). However, lead dislodgment was more common with subcutaneous implantations (p = 0.019, 2.3% vs. 0.5% at 6 months) and occurred primarily during the first month postoperatively. Overall, there were no significant differences in cumulative freedom from complications between groups (4.1% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.1836). CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous pectoral implantation of this ICD can be performed safely and has a low complication rate. This approach requires a simple surgical procedure and, compared with the submuscular approach, is associated with shorter procedure times and comparable overall complication rates. However, early follow-up is important in view of the increased lead dislodgment rate.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. S. Amin, D. B. Matchar, M. A. Wood, and K. A. Ellenbogen Management of recalled pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a decision analysis model. JAMA, July 26, 2006; 296(4): 412 - 420. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				U. K. H. Wiegand, D. LeJeune, F. Boguschewski, H. Bonnemeier, F. Eberhardt, H. Schunkert, and F. Bode Pocket Hematoma After Pacemaker or Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Surgery: Influence of Patient Morbidity, Operation Strategy, and Perioperative Antiplatelet/Anticoagulation Therapy Chest, October 1, 2004; 126(4): 1177 - 1186. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Sims, K. L. Schoff, J. M. Loeb, and N. A. Wiegert Regional gap junction inhibition increases defibrillation thresholds Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, June 5, 2003; 285(1): H10 - H16. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Cheng, K. A. Mowrey, V. Nikolski, P. J. Tchou, and I. R. Efimov Mechanisms of shock-induced arrhythmogenesis during acute global ischemia Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, June 1, 2002; 282(6): H2141 - H2151. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Glatter and L. B. Liem Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator: Current Progress and Management Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, September 1, 2000; 4(3): 162 - 179. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K J Lipscomb, N J Linker, and A P Fitzpatrick Subpectoral implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator under local anaesthesia Heart, March 1, 1998; 79(3): 253 - 255. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				Y. Cheng, K. A. Mowrey, V. Nikolski, P. J. Tchou, and I. R. Efimov Mechanisms of shock-induced arrhythmogenesis during acute global ischemia Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, June 1, 2002; 282(6): H2141 - H2151. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]