Management of Ventricular Arrhythmias in Patients with Mechanical Ventricular Support Devices

Anesthetic management for non-cardiac surgery in patients with left ventricular assist devices

With the growing number of patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and improved survival in this population, more patients with LVADs are presenting for various types of non-cardiac surgery. Therefore, anesthesiologists need to understand the physiology and adequately prepare for the perioperative management of this unique patient population. This review addresses perioperative considerations and intraoperative management for the safe and successful management of patients with an LVAD undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Understanding the basic physiology of preload dependency and afterload sensitivity in these patients is essential. The main considerations include a collaborative preoperative multidisciplinary approach, perioperative care aimed at optimizing the intravascular volume and right ventricular function, and maintaining the afterload within recommended ranges for optimal LVAD function.

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: Current knowledge, complications, and future directions

Long-term continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices have become a real alternative to heart transplantation in patients with advanced heart failure, achieving a promising 2-year event-free survival rate with new-generation devices. Currently, this technology has spread throughout the world, and any cardiologist or cardiac surgeon should be familiar with its fundamentals and its possible complications as well as the advances made in recent years. The aim of this review is to describe current knowledge, management of complications, and future directions of this novel heart-failure therapy.

[Recommendations for emergency management of patients with permanent mechanical circulatory support : Consensus statement of DGTHG, DIVI, DGIIN, DGAI, DGINA, DGfK and DGK]

The prevalence of patients living with long-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is rapidly increasing due to improved technology, improved survival, reduced adverse event profiles, greater reliability and mechanical durability, and limited numbers of organs available for donation. Patients with long-term MCS are very likely to require emergency medical support due to MCS-associated complications (e.g., right heart failure, left ventricular assist device malfunction, hemorrhage and pump thrombosis) but also due to non-MCS-associated conditions. Because of the unique characteristics of mechanical support, management of these patients is complicated and there is very little literature on emergency care for these patients. The purpose of this national scientific statement is to present consensus-based recommendations for the initial evaluation and resuscitation of adult patients with long-term MCS.

ICD shocks in LVAD patients are not associated with increased subsequent mortality risk

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks are associated with increased mortality risk in heart failure patients. Whether ICD shocks are associated with mortality in continuous flow LVAD (CF-LVAD) patients is unknown. We studied the relationship of ICD shocks and ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) to morbidity and mortality in CF-LVAD-supported patients in our institution.

METHODS

Single-center, retrospective study of prospectively collected ICD and LVAD databases. We analyzed data on VA which received ICD therapy in patients who underwent CF-LVAD implantation at Hartford Hospital between 2008 and 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients were studied. During a median follow-up of 10 months (interquartile range 5-20 months), 48 patients (30.6%) experienced post-LVAD sustained VA. Thirty patients (19.1%) had appropriate shocks for VA and 5 patients (3.1%) had inappropriate shocks. Shocks for any arrhythmia were not associated with an increased risk of death (OR 0.836, 95% CI 0.224-3.115, p = 0.789). Neither post-LVAD VA nor the rate of VA was associated with an increased mortality risk (OR 0.662 [0.329-1.334], p = 0.248; OR 1.001 [0.989-1.014], p = 0.817, respectively). Cox multivariate regression analysis revealed pre-LVAD VA as a significant predictor of VA post LVAD implantation (OR 3.284 [1.584-6.808], p = 0.001). Symptoms with VA occurred in 22 (45.8%) patients, ranging from palpitations to near syncope/syncope. None of the variables including the rate of VA was associated with death or symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

VAs are common in CF-LVAD patients and occur with higher frequency in those with pre-LVAD VA and frequently cause symptoms. Neither VA nor ICD shocks are associated with mortality risk.

Facilitating noncardiac surgery for the patient with left ventricular assist device: A guide for the anesthesiologist

The introduction of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has improved survival rates for patients with end-stage heart failure. Two categories of VADs exist: one generates pulsatile flow and the other produces nonpulsatile continuous flow. Survival is better for patients with continuous-flow LVADs. With improved survival, more of such patients now present for noncardiac surgery (NCS). This review, written for the general anesthesiologists, addresses the perioperative considerations when the patient undergoes NCS. For best outcomes, a multidisciplinary approach is essential in perioperative management of the patient.

Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Programming in Patients With a Left Ventricular Assist Device

BACKGROUND

Ventricular arrhythmias are common in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) but are often hemodynamically tolerated. Optimal implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) tachy-programming strategies in patients with LVAD have not been determined. We sought to determine if an ultra-conservative ICD programming strategy in patients with LVAD affects ICD shocks.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Adult patients with an existing ICD undergoing continuous flow LVAD implantation were randomized to standard ICD programming by their treating physician or an ultra-conservative ICD programming strategy utilizing maximal allowable intervals to detection in the ventricular fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia zones with use of ATP. Patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices were also randomized to CRT ON or OFF. Patients were followed a minimum of 6 months. The primary outcome was time to first ICD shock. Among the 83 patients studied, we found no statistically significant difference in time to first ICD shock or total ICD shocks between groups. In the ultra-conservative group 16% of patients experienced at least one shock compared with 21% in the control group (P=0.66). There was no difference in mortality, arrhythmic hospitalization, or hospitalization for heart failure. In the 41 patients with CRT ICDs fewer shocks were observed with CRT-ON but this was not statistically significant: 10% of patients with CRT-ON (n=21) versus 38% with CRT-OFF (n=20) received shocks (P=0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

An ultra-conservative programming strategy did not reduce ICD shocks. Programming restrictions on ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation zone therapy should be reconsidered for the LVAD population. The role of CRT in patients with LVAD warrants further investigation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01977703.