BACKGROUND: We compared the clinical course of 10 patients who received an implantable loop recorder (ILR) at a traditional site with 11 patients whose ILRs were implanted via a subpectoral site via a left axillary approach without complications. METHODS AND RESULTS: R-wave amplitude was determined at implantation and during follow-up. Each patient was followed after 7 days to optimize device setting and then at 1 and 3 months. The R-wave amplitude obtained with the new technique was significantly higher and more stable than that obtained with the standard procedure. Our preliminary experience suggests that axillary access for ILR implantation is feasible, safe, well tolerated, and reliable in terms of sensing function and device performance. Moreover, it is superior aesthetically to the standard approach and carries the potential of minimizing permanent scarring after ILR extraction.
BACKGROUND: We compared the clinical course of 10 patients who received an implantable loop recorder (ILR) at a traditional site with 11 patients whose ILRs were implanted via a subpectoral site via a left axillary approach without complications. METHODS AND RESULTS: R-wave amplitude was determined at implantation and during follow-up. Each patient was followed after 7 days to optimize device setting and then at 1 and 3 months. The R-wave amplitude obtained with the new technique was significantly higher and more stable than that obtained with the standard procedure. Our preliminary experience suggests that axillary access for ILR implantation is feasible, safe, well tolerated, and reliable in terms of sensing function and device performance. Moreover, it is superior aesthetically to the standard approach and carries the potential of minimizing permanent scarring after ILR extraction.
Authors: Leonard Bergau; Christian Sohns; Samuel Sossalla; Pascal Muñoz-Exposito; Lars Luethje; Markus Zabel Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 1.900