Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2024
Cardiac implantable electronic devices in female patients: Esthetic, breast implant, and anatomic considerations.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Salinas Cristina A, Ezzeddine Fatima M, Mulpuru Siva K, Asirvatham Samuel J, Sharaf Basel A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The implantation of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) can have esthetic and psychological consequences on patients. We explore a heart team model for care coordination and discuss esthetic approaches for improved cosmetic outcomes in patients undergoing (CIED)-related procedures or de novo implantation.
METHODS: Patients undergoing CIED surgery for approved indications between June 2015 and June 2022 were identified. Patients were included when surgical care was provided by a collaborative relationship between the primary electrophysiologist and the plastic surgeon. Patient demographics, details of the surgical procedure, information on breast implants, complications, and outcomes related to cosmesis were recorded.
RESULTS: Twenty-two female patients were included in this study. The mean age was 50.2 ± 18.2 years. The mean follow-up duration was 2.2 ± 5.5 months. The top two indications for the procedure included CIED generator change (n = 9, 41%) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation (n = 7, 32%). The most common reasons for involving plastic surgery in the procedure included surgery near breast implants (n = 10, 45%) and device displacement or discomfort (n = 8, 36%). CIED pocket position was prepectoral in 10 cases (45%), subpectoral in 11 patients (50%), and intramuscular in one patient (4.5%). The majority of the patients (20, 91%) had cosmetically acceptable results postprocedure. One patient (4.5%) had breast asymmetry on the CIED side, and another continued to have skin erosion over the CIED and leads.
CONCLUSION: A heart team approach incorporating the expertize of cardiac electrophysiology and plastic surgery is essential for providing optimal care for patients with breast implants and patients requesting esthetic appeal.
METHODS: Patients undergoing CIED surgery for approved indications between June 2015 and June 2022 were identified. Patients were included when surgical care was provided by a collaborative relationship between the primary electrophysiologist and the plastic surgeon. Patient demographics, details of the surgical procedure, information on breast implants, complications, and outcomes related to cosmesis were recorded.
RESULTS: Twenty-two female patients were included in this study. The mean age was 50.2 ± 18.2 years. The mean follow-up duration was 2.2 ± 5.5 months. The top two indications for the procedure included CIED generator change (n = 9, 41%) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation (n = 7, 32%). The most common reasons for involving plastic surgery in the procedure included surgery near breast implants (n = 10, 45%) and device displacement or discomfort (n = 8, 36%). CIED pocket position was prepectoral in 10 cases (45%), subpectoral in 11 patients (50%), and intramuscular in one patient (4.5%). The majority of the patients (20, 91%) had cosmetically acceptable results postprocedure. One patient (4.5%) had breast asymmetry on the CIED side, and another continued to have skin erosion over the CIED and leads.
CONCLUSION: A heart team approach incorporating the expertize of cardiac electrophysiology and plastic surgery is essential for providing optimal care for patients with breast implants and patients requesting esthetic appeal.