Lead Extraction for Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infection in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices

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

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.

Risk Factors for Mortality in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Infections following cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation can require surgical device removal and often results in significant cost, morbidity, and potentially mortality. We aimed to systemically review the literature and identify risk factors associated with mortality following CIED infection. Methods: Electronic searches (up to June 2021) were performed on PubMed and Scopus. Twelve studies (10 retrospective, 2 prospective cohort studies) were included for analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted with the restricted maximum likelihood method, with mortality as the outcome. The overall mortality was 13.7% (438/1398) following CIED infection. Results: On meta-analysis, the male sex (OR 0.77, 95%CI 0.57–1.01, I² = 2.2%) appeared to have lower odds for mortality, while diabetes mellitus appeared to be associated with higher mortality (OR 1.47, 95%CI 0.67–3.26, I² = 81.4%), although these trends did not reach statistical significance. Staphylococcus aureus as the causative organism (OR 2.71, 95%CI 1.76–4.19, I² = 0.0%), presence of heart failure (OR 1.92, 95%CI 1.42–4.19, I² = 0.0%) and embolic phenomena (OR 4.00, 95%CI 1.67–9.56, I² = 69.8%) were associated with higher mortality. Surgical removal of CIED was associated with lower mortality compared with conservative management with antibiotics alone (OR 0.22, 95%CI 0.09–0.50, I² = 62.8%). Conclusion: We identified important risk factors associated with mortality in CIED infections, including Staphyloccocus aureus as the causative organism, and the presence of complications, such as heart failure and embolic phenomena. Surgery, where possible, was associated with better outcomes.