Submammary Device Implantation in Women: A Step-by-Step Approach

• Published in: Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology 2013-04, Vol.24 (4), p.476-479
• Main Authors: GIUDICI, MICHAEL C., MEIERBACHTOL, CYNTHIA J., PAUL, DEBORAH L., KRUPA, ROSELYN K., VAZQUEZ, LAUREN D., SERGE BAROLD, S.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Activities of Daily Living; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Body Image; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices; Cicatrix - etiology; Defibrillators; Defibrillators, Implantable; Female; Humans; implant techniques; Middle Aged; Pacemaker, Artificial; Patient Satisfaction; Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects; Prosthesis Implantation - instrumentation; Prosthesis Implantation - methods; quality-of-life; Self image; Stress, Psychological - etiology; submammary implantation; Surveys and Questionnaires; Time Factors; Transplants & implants; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1045-3873; 1540-8167
• DOI: 10.1111/jce.12033

Submammary Device Implantation in Women. Introduction: The frequency of device implantation is increasing in younger patients as our ability to diagnose long‐QT syndrome, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, Brugada Syndrome, and other life‐threatening disorders earlier has improved. Similarly, use of cardiac resynchronization therapy and ICD therapies has increased in cardiomyopathy patients. Methods and Results: Device implantation in young women has unique considerations. Standard pectoral implants lead to excessive scar formation due to skin tension and interfere with purse straps, bra straps, and seat belts. There are also privacy and body image concerns as the subclavian region is exposed with many contemporary fashions. Results: Over an 11‐year period, we implanted pacemakers, implantable converter‐defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices (defibrillators or pacemakers) in 60 women, aged 13–70 years, using a 2‐incision submammary approach. Follow‐up surveys were performed using the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS). Women with submammary device placement reported significantly greater device acceptance (M = 92.41, SD = 6.46) than women with standard implant technique (M = 70.29, SD = 17.85); t (54) =–6.08, P < 0.001, on the FPAS. Across subscales on the FPAS, women with submammary device placement also reported significantly less body image concern (P < 0.001), less device‐related emotional distress (P < 0.001), and greater confidence in returning to life appropriately (P = 0.01) than women with standard device placement. Conclusion: We present here our technique for submammary device implantation. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 24, pp. 476‐479, April 2013)