Key result
Epicardial AICD implantation via left subcostal thoracotomy appears safe with 0% requiring initial lead revision.
Why the study?
Does epicardial implantation of the AICD by left subcostal thoracotomy provide safe outcomes and stable lead thresholds in patients requiring an AICD?
Observational (n=15)
Does epicardial implantation of the AICD by left subcostal thoracotomy provide safe outcomes and stable lead thresholds in patients requiring an AICD?
The left subcostal thoracotomy approach for epicardial AICD implantation is safe, avoids transvenous lead complications, and provides stable chronic lead thresholds.
L awrie GM, et al : Epicardial implantation of the automatic implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator by left subcostal thoracotomy . The left subcostal thoracotomy technique has been developed for implantation of an all‐epicardial lead System for the automatic implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator. (AICD) Experience is reported in 15 patients. Advantages of this approach have proven to be: safety and low surgical morbidity; good thresholds; absence of lead dislodgment during AICD discharge; absence of complications of transvenous leads; a deep position of the AICD unit which protects against skin erosion and is cosmetically pleasing. No patient has required revision of the initial leads and chronic lead thresholds have been stable. Because of this favorable experience, we recommend the left subcostal thoracotomy approach as the procedure of choice for primary implantation of the AICD .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lawrie et al. (1986) conducted an observational in Indication for automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (AICD) (n=15). Left subcostal thoracotomy for epicardial AICD implantation was evaluated on Need for revision of initial leads. Epicardial implantation of the automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator by left subcostal thoracotomy was safe, with 0% of 15 patients requiring revision of the initial leads.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: