AI Article Synopsis

  • This study investigates the outcomes of patients who have both a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) and a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) due to limited existing data on the topic.
  • A retrospective study at Duke University Hospital identified four patients with S-ICD after LVAD implantation, all of whom experienced electromagnetic interference (EMI) that led to inappropriate shocks in some cases.
  • The systematic review also revealed that EMI is common, especially in primary and secondary sensing vectors, but undersensing in an alternate vector may improve over time, possibly preventing the need for device surgery.

Article Abstract

Background: There are limited data on the performance of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe the clinical course and outcomes of patients with both an S-ICD and an LVAD at our institution and via a systematic review of published studies.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent LVAD implantation from 2009 to 2019 at Duke University Hospital. We also performed a systematic review of studies involving patients with an S-ICD and LVAD using the PubMed/Embase databases.

Results: Of 588 patients undergoing LVAD implantation with a preexisting implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, 4 had an S-ICD in situ after LVAD implantation. All 4 patients developed electromagnetic interference (EMI) in the primary/secondary vectors after LVAD implantation, resulting in inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks in 2 patients. Sensing in the alternate vector was adequate immediately postoperatively in 1 patient. Postoperative undersensing was present in the alternate vector in 3 patients but improved at first outpatient follow-up in 2 patients, allowing tachy therapies to be reenabled. Eight studies involving 27 patients were identified in the systematic review. EMI was common and frequently absent in the alternate vector (6 of 7 patients).

Conclusion: Undersensing and EMI are common after LVAD implantation in patients with an S-ICD in situ, particularly in the primary and secondary sensing vectors. Undersensing in the alternate vector may improve during follow-up, obviating the need for device revision or extraction.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.04.019DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

lvad implantation
20
implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
16
systematic review
16
alternate vector
16
patients
12
patients s-icd
12
subcutaneous implantable
8
patients left
8
left ventricular
8
ventricular assist
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!