TY - JOUR
T1 - Left ventricular assist device in the presence of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator
T2 - Data from a multicenter experience
AU - Migliore, Federico
AU - Schiavone, Marco
AU - Pittorru, Raimondo
AU - Forleo, Giovanni B.
AU - De Lazzari, Manuel
AU - Mitacchione, Gianfranco
AU - Biffi, Mauro
AU - Gulletta, Simone
AU - Kuschyk, Jurgen
AU - Dall'Aglio, Pietro Bernardo
AU - Rovaris, Giovanni
AU - Tilz, Roland
AU - Mastro, Florinda Rosaria
AU - Iliceto, Sabino
AU - Tondo, Claudio
AU - Di Biase, Luigi
AU - Gasperetti, Alessio
AU - Tarzia, Vincenzo
AU - Gerosa, Gino
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2024/4/1
Y1 - 2024/4/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85183642831&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/3a280eb6-a266-36b3-9002-e88f62fdd779/
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.131807
DO - 10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.131807
M3 - Journal articles
C2 - 38272130
AN - SCOPUS:85183642831
SN - 0167-5273
VL - 400
SP - 131807
JO - International Journal of Cardiology
JF - International Journal of Cardiology
M1 - 131807
ER -