Safety and feasibility of implanting a transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV‐ICD) in the left axilla. Issue 11 (6th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Enomoto, Yoshinari; Noro, Mahito; Toyoda, Yasutake; Ishii, Rina; Asami, Masako; Takagi, Takahito; Sahara, Naohiko; Hashimoto, Hikari; Kujime, Shingo; Nakamura, Keijiro; Hara, Hidehiko; Moroi, Masao; Sugi, Kaoru; Nakamura, Masato
• Is Part Of: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. Volume 44:Issue 11(2021)
• Page Start: 1810
• Page End: 1816
• Publication Date: 2021-10-06
• Subjects: implantable cardioverter defibrillator -- implantation site -- left axilla; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.14362
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0147-8389

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV‐ICD) systems are commonly implanted in the left anterior chest because of an easier implantation and better defibrillation threshold. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of left axillary implantations of TV‐ICD systems. Methods: We performed left axillary TV‐ICD implantations and compared that to the major complication rate and operation time of the conventional TV‐ICD implantation site (left anterior chest). The electrical parameter trends were also assessed in the left axilla group. Results: Seventy‐six consecutive patients were evaluated for the analysis. Thirty‐one patients had their system implanted in the left axilla and the reasons for the implantations included 29 patients for cosmetic reasons and two for post‐infection conditions. The operation time and major complication rate were similar between the two groups (left anterior chest vs. left axilla: 134±62.4 min vs. 114±33.5 min, p = .11, 1/45 patient, 2.2% [pocket hematoma] vs. 1/31 patient, 3.2% [lead dislodgement], p = .77). During the follow up period (4.9±2.3years), no lead interruptions were observed in either group. The electrical lead parameters at the time of the implantation and follow up were similar in the study group (R wave sensing 20.8±33.4 vs. 11.2±7.42 mv, p = .34; lead impedance 464±64.7 vs. 418±135ohm, p = .22; pacing threshold [at 0.4 ms] 1.0±0.76 vs. 1.21±0.93V, p = .49). Conclusion: TV‐ICD implantations in the left axilla were performed safely without increasing the operation time as compared to the conventional ICD implantation site. ICD implantations in the left axilla are an alternative in those not suitable for implanting TV‐ICDs in the conventional implantation site.