Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with ventricular arrhythmias after continous-flow left ventricular assist device implant

Real-world data of patients affected by advanced heart failure treated with implantable cardioverter defibrillator and left ventricular assist device: Results of a multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist device (L-VAD) implantation is increasingly used in patients with heart failure (HF) and most patients also have an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Limited data are available on the incidence of ICD therapies and complications in this special setting. The aim of this study was to analyze the real-world incidence and predictors of ICD therapies, complications and interactions between ICD and L-VAD.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter retrospective observational study in patients with advanced HF implanted with ICD and a continuous-flow L-VAD, followed-up in five advanced HF centers in Northern Italy.

RESULTS

A total of 234 patients (89.7% male, median age 59, 48.3% with ischemic etiology) were enrolled. After a median follow-up of 21 months, 66 patients (28.2%) experienced an appropriate ICD therapy, 22 patients (9.4%) an inappropriate ICD therapy, and 17 patients (7.3%) suffered from an interaction between ICD and L-VAD. The composite outcome of all ICD-related complications was reported in 41 patients (17.5%), and 121 (51.7%) experienced an L-VAD-related complication. At multivariable analysis, an active ventricular tachycardia (VT) zone and a prior ICD generator replacement were independent predictors of ICD therapies and of total ICD-related complications, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world patients with both L-VAD and ICD experience a high rate of ICD therapies and complications. Our findings suggest the importance of tailoring device programming in order to minimize the incidence of unnecessary ICD therapies, thus sparing the need for ICD generator replacement, a procedure associated to a high risk of complications.

Management of incessant ventricular arrhythmias in a patient with left ventricular assist device: a case report

BACKGROUND

The implantation of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as a bridge to transplantation or as destination therapy in end-stage heart failure patients is frequently complicated by the emergence of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). These arrhythmias have been implicated in precipitating deleterious clinical outcomes, increased mortality rates and augmented healthcare expenditures.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a challenging case of a 49-year-old male with a history of dilated cardiomyopathy who received an LVAD. Post-implantation, the patient suffered from intractable VAs, leading to multiple rehospitalizations and hemodynamic deterioration. Despite exhaustive medical management and electrical cardioversion attempts, the patient's VAs persisted, ultimately necessitating prioritization for cardiac transplantation.

DISCUSSION

This case highlights the challenges in managing VAs in LVAD patients and the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration. While pharmacological intervention is the initial strategy, catheter ablation may be considered in selected cases when medication is insufficient. In instances of intractable VAs, expeditious listing for heart transplantation as a high-priority candidate is advisable when feasible.

Ventricular Arrhythmias in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients-Current Diagnostic and Therapeutic Considerations

Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are used in the treatment of advanced left ventricular heart failure. LVAD can serve as a bridge to orthotopic heart transplantation or as a destination therapy in cases where orthotopic heart transplantation is contraindicated. Ventricular arrhythmias are frequently observed in patients with LVAD. This problem is further compounded as a result of diagnostic difficulties arising from presently available electrocardiographic methods. Due to artifacts from LVAD-generated electromagnetic fields, it can be challenging to assess the origin of arrhythmias in standard ECG tracings. In this article, we will review and discuss common mechanisms, diagnostics methods, and therapeutic strategies for ventricular arrhythmia treatment, as well as numerous problems we face in LVAD implant patients.

Prognostic impact of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and associated adverse events in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices

Objectives

Implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) reduces the risk of all-cause mortality in symptomatic heart failure (HF) patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Nevertheless, the prognostic impact of ICD therapy in continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients remains controversial.

Methods

162 consecutive HF patients, who underwent LVAD implantation at our institution between 2010 and 2019, were categorized according to the presence (n = 94, ICD-group) or absence (n = 68, Control-group) of ICDs. Apart from clinical baseline and follow-up parameters, adverse events (AEs) related to ICD therapy and overall survival rates were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

Out of 162 consecutive LVAD recipients 79 patients (48.8%) were preoperatively categorized as Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile ≤2. The prevalence of severe HF symptoms and preoperative use of short-term circulatory support devices (54.4% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.001) was higher within the Control-group, although baseline severity of LV and RV dysfunction was similar. Apart from an increased prevalence of perioperative right heart failure (RHF) within the Control-group (45.6% vs. 17.0%; p < 0.001), procedural characteristics and perioperative outcome were similar. Overall-survival during a median follow-up of 14 (3.0-36.5) months was similar within both groups (p = 0.46). During the first 2 years after LVAD implantation 53 ICD-related AEs occurred within the ICD-group. Thereof, lead-dysfunction occurred in 19 patients and unplanned ICD-reintervention in 11 patients. Furthermore, in 18 patients appropriate shocks without loss of consciousness occurred, whereas inappropriate shocks occurred in 5 patients.

Conclusion

ICD therapy in LVAD recipients was not associated with a survival benefit or reduced morbidity after LVAD implantation. Conservative ICD-programming seems to be justified to avoid ICD-related complications and "awake shocks" after LVAD implantation.

Meta-Analysis on the Impact of Ventricular Arrhythmias on Mortality in Patients With Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices

Patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (CFLVADs) have an increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias (VA), but the impact of VA on survival is unclear. A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identify studies that reported the impact of VA on all-cause mortality and right ventricular failure (RVF) in patients with CFLVAD. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval (CI) and pooled risk ratio (RR) with a random-effects model. A total of 19 observational studies with 4,544 patients and a median follow-up of 18.5 months (interquartile range 11.5 to 26.4) were included. There was statistically significantly higher mortality in patients with any VA than in those with no VA after CFLVAD implantation (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.75, p = 0.04, I² = 78%). On sensitivity analysis, after removing the largest study by Rehorn et al,¹⁰ the association between overall mortality and VA was lost, suggesting that these results should be interpreted with caution. Early VA developing within 30 days after implantation was associated with a higher risk of mortality (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.63, p <0.01, I² = 52%), whereas late VA developing after 30 days after CFLVAD implantation was not associated with any significant difference in mortality (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.24; p = 0.98, I² = 35%). In addition, there was a statistically significant higher risk of RVF in patients with VA than in those with no VA (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.08, p <0.01, I² = 0%). In conclusion, in patients with CFLVAD, the development of any VA was associated with a 33% higher risk of all-cause mortality. Early VA developing within 30 days after implantation was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality, whereas late VA was not associated with mortality. VA after left ventricular assist device was significantly associated with a higher risk of developing RVF.