Eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with left ventricular assist device

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.

Wireless Power Transfer and Telemetry for Implantable Bioelectronics

Implantable bioelectronic devices are becoming useful and prospective solutions for various diseases owing to their ability to monitor or manipulate body functions. However, conventional implantable devices (e.g., pacemaker and neurostimulator) are still bulky and rigid, which is mostly due to the energy storage component. In addition to mechanical mismatch between the bulky and rigid implantable device and the soft human tissue, another significant drawback is that the entire device should be surgically replaced once the initially stored energy is exhausted. Besides, retrieving physiological information across a closed epidermis is a tricky procedure. However, wireless interfaces for power and data transfer utilizing radio frequency (RF) microwave offer a promising solution for resolving such issues. While the RF interfacing devices for power and data transfer are extensively investigated and developed using conventional electronics, their application to implantable bioelectronics is still a challenge owing to the constraints and requirements of in vivo environments, such as mechanical softness, small module size, tissue attenuation, and biocompatibility. This work elucidates the recent advances in RF-based power transfer and telemetry for implantable bioelectronics to tackle such challenges.

Eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in adults with congenital heart disease

Aims

Patients with adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) carry an increased risk for sudden cardiac death. Implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) therapy may be challenging in these patients due to anatomical barriers, repeated cardiac surgery, or complicated transvenous access. Thus, the subcutaneous ICD (S‐ICD) can be a promising alternative in this patient population. Patients with ACHD show significant electrocardiogram (ECG) abnormalities, which could affect S‐ICD sensing because it depends on surface ECG.

Methods and results

One hundred patients with ACHD were screened for S‐ICD eligibility. Standard ECG‐based screening test and automated S‐ICD screening test were performed in all patients. Sixty‐six patients (66%) were male. Underlying congenital heart disease (CHD) was mainly CHD of great complexity (71%) and moderate complexity (29%), including repaired tetralogy of Fallot (20%), which was the most common entity. Thirty‐seven patients (37%) already had a pacemaker (23%) or ICD (14%) implanted. Automated screening test identified 83 patients (83%) eligible for S‐ICD implantation in either left parasternal position (78%) or right parasternal position (75%). Absence of sinus rhythm, QRS duration, and a paced QRS complex were associated with S‐ICD screening failure in univariate analysis. Receiver operating characteristic curve and multivariate analysis revealed a QRS duration ≥148 ms as the only independent predictor for S‐ICD screening failure.

Conclusions

Patients with ACHD show satisfactory eligibility rates (83%) for S‐ICD implantation utilizing the automated screening test, including patients with CHD of high complexity. S‐ICD therapy should be considered with caution in ACHD patients with a QRS duration ≥148 ms and/or need for ventricular pacing.

Wearable cardioverter defibrillator: bridging for implantable defibrillators in left ventricular assist device patients

There is currently conflicting data available regarding the use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients. While the benefit of an ICD in heart failure patients is well demonstrated, such benefit has failed to reach the LVAD population. In lack of randomized control trial data on the topic of ICD use in LVAD recipients, major societal guidelines are in disagreement when comes to the topic of routine implantation of a permanent defibrillator in prospective ventricular assist device patients. Alternative permanent defibrillator strategies have been suggested for the LVAD population such as subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) but eligibility of patients for such practice remains disappointing. Although most of the heart failure patients undergoing LVAD implantation already bear an ICD, clinicians are left with the decision of de novo implanting an ICD in an important number of patients. Wearable cardioverter defibrillators could prove beneficial in LVAD recipients by utilizing them as a bridge to decision towards the implantation of a permanent defibrillator.

A novel screening tool to unmask potential interference between S-ICD and left ventricular assist device

INTRODUCTION

In patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD), the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) can be an alternative to transvenous ICD systems due to reduced risk of systemic infection, which could lead to extraction of the ICD as well as the LVAD. S-ICD eligibility is lower in patients with LVAD than in patients with end-stage heart failure without LVAD. Several reports have shown inappropriate S-ICD therapy in the coexistence of LVAD and S-ICD. The aim of the present study was to evaluate S-ICD eligibility in patients with LVAD using the established electrocardiogram (ECG)-based screening test as well as a novel device-based screening test to identify potentially inappropriate S-ICD sensing in this specific patient cohort.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The present study included 115 patients implanted with an LVAD. The standard ECG-based screening test and a novel device-based screening test were performed in all patients. Eighty patients (70%) were eligible for S-ICD therapy with the standard ECG-based screening test. Performance of the novel device-based screening test identified device-device interference in 14 of these 80 patients (12%).

CONCLUSION

Using a novel extended device-based S-ICD screening method, a small number of patients with LVAD deemed eligible for S-ICD with the standard ECG-based screening test exhibit device-device interference. Careful S-ICD screening should be performed in patients with LVAD, who are candidates for S-ICD therapy, to prevent inappropriate sensing or ICD therapy.