Left ventricular assist device in the presence of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Data from a multicenter experience

Federico Migliore*, Marco Schiavone, Raimondo Pittorru, Giovanni B. Forleo, Manuel De Lazzari, Gianfranco Mitacchione, Mauro Biffi, Simone Gulletta, Jurgen Kuschyk, Pietro Bernardo Dall'Aglio, Giovanni Rovaris, Roland Tilz, Florinda Rosaria Mastro, Sabino Iliceto, Claudio Tondo, Luigi Di Biase, Alessio Gasperetti, Vincenzo Tarzia, Gino Gerosa

*Corresponding author for this work

Abstract

Background: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly used strategy for the management of patients with advanced heart failure (HF). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) might be a viable alternative to conventional ICDs with a lower risk of short- and long-term of device-related complications and infections.The aim of this multicenter study was to evaluate the outcomes and management of S-ICD recipients who underwent LVAD implantation. Methods: The study population included patients with a preexisting S-ICD who underwent LVAD implantation for advanced HF despite optimal medical therapy. Results: The study population included 30 patients (25 male; median age 45 [38–52] years).The HeartMate III was the most common LVAD type. Median follow-up in the setting of concomitant use of S-ICDs and LVADs was 7 months (1–20).There were no reports of inability to interrogate S-ICD systems in this population. Electromagnetic interference (EMI) occurred in 21 (70%) patients. The primary sensing vector was the one most significantly involved in determining EMI. Twenty-seven patients (90%) remained eligible for S-ICD implantation with at least one optimal sensing vector. The remaining 3 patients (10%) were ineligible for S-ICD after attempts of reprogramming of sensing vectors. Six patients (20%) experienced inappropriate shocks (IS) due to EMI. Six patients (20%) experienced appropriate shocks. No S-ICD extraction because of need for antitachycardia pacing, ineffective therapy or infection was reported. Conclusions: Concomitant use of LVAD and S-ICD is feasible in most patients. However, the potential risk of EMI oversensing, IS and undersensing in the post-operative period following LVAD implantation should be considered. Careful screening for EMI should be performed in all sensing vectors after LVAD implantation.

Original languageEnglish
Article number131807
JournalInternational Journal of Cardiology
Volume400
Pages (from-to)131807
ISSN0167-5273
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01.04.2024

Research Areas and Centers

  • Centers: Cardiological Center Luebeck (UHZL)

DFG Research Classification Scheme

  • 205-12 Cardiology, Angiology

Cite this