Electrocardiographic changes after implantation of a left ventricular assist device - Potential implications for subcutaneous defibrillator therapy

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.

Device-device interaction between cardiac implantable electronic devices and continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices

The current design of an innovative left ventricular assist device (LVAD) makes use of magnetic levitation technology, which enables the rotors of the device to be completely suspended by magnetic force, reducing friction and blood or plasma damage. However, this electromagnetic field can result in electromagnetic interference (EMI), which can interfere with proper functioning of another cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) in its direct proximity. Approximately 80% of patients with an LVAD have a CIED, most frequently an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Several device-device interactions have been reported, including EMI-induced inappropriate shocks, inability to establish telemetry connection, EMI-induced premature battery depletion, undersensing by the device, and other CIED malfunctions. Unfortunately, additional procedures, including generator exchange, lead adjustment, and system extraction, are frequently required because of these interactions. In some circumstances, the additional procedure might be preventable or avoidable with appropriate solutions. In this article, we describe how EMI from the LVAD impacts the functionality of the CIED and provide possible management options, including manufacturer-specific information, for the current CIEDs (eg, transvenous and leadless pacemakers, transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs, and transvenous cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers and ICDs).

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.

Reducing ECG Artifact From Left Ventricular Assist Device Electromagnetic Interference

Background Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) generate electromagnetic interference that causes high-frequency noise artifacts on 12-lead ECGs. We describe the causes of this interference and potential solutions to aid ECG interpretation in patients with LVAD. Methods and Results Waveform data from ECGs performed before and after LVAD implantation were passed through a fast Fourier transform to identify LVAD-related changes in the spectral profile. ECGs recorded in 9 patients with HeartMate II, HeartMate 3, and HeartWare LVADs were analyzed to identify the LVAD model-specific spectral patterns. Waveform data were then passed through digital low-pass and bandstop filters and redisplayed to evaluate the effect of filtering on LVAD-related electromagnetic interference. The spectral profile of patients with HeartMate II and HeartMate 3 LVADs demonstrated a prominent signal at the device-specific frequency of impeller rotation. In patients with the HeartMate 3 LVAD, 2 additional peaks were observed at the frequencies equivalent to the LVAD's artificial pulsatility rotational speeds. Patients with HeartWare devices demonstrated a prominent signal peak at a frequency equal to double their LVAD's set rotational speed. Applying a low-pass filter to a value below the observed frequency peak from the LVAD significantly improved the waveform tracing and quality of the ECG. Applying a speed-specific bandstop filter to remove the observed LVAD frequency peak also improved the clarity of the ECG without compromising physiological high-frequency signal components. Conclusions LVADs create impeller rotational speed-specific electromagnetic interference that can be ameliorated by application of low-pass or bandstop filters to improve ECG clarity.

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

Purpose

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) could be a promising alternative to the conventional transvenous ICD in patients with LVAD due to its reduced risk of infection. However, surface ECG is altered following LVAD implantation and, since S-ICD detection is based on surface ECG, S-ICD could be potentially affected. The aim of the present study was to analyze S-ICD eligibility in patients with LVAD.

Methods

Seventy-five patients implanted with an LVAD were included in this prospective single-center study. The ECG-based screening test and the automated screening test were performed in all patients.

Results

Fifty-five (73.3%) patients had either a positive ECG-based or automated screening test. Out of these, 28 (37.3%) patients were found eligible for S-ICD implantation with both screening tests performed. ECG-based screening test was positive in 50 (66.6%) patients; automated screening test was positive in 33 (44.0%) patients. Three ECG-based screening tests could not be evaluated due to artifacts. With the automated screening test, in 9 (12.0%) patients, the test yielded no result.

Conclusions

Patients implanted with an LVAD showed lower S-ICD eligibility rates compared with patients without LVAD. With an S-ICD eligibility rate of maximal 73.3%, S-ICD therapy may be a feasible option in these patients. Nevertheless, S-ICD implantation should be carefully weighed against potential device-device interference. Prospective studies regarding S-ICD eligibility before and after LVAD implantation are required to further elucidate the role of S-ICD therapy in this population.

[Device-device interaction]

With a continuous increase in the approval of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED), not only pacemakers (PM) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) but especially devices for treating chronic heart failure, more and more possibilities of device-device interactions arise, which in isolated cases can lead to death of the patient. Because of the still low numbers of patients overall, there are very few scientific studies and only isolated case reports on this topic. Devices which are at risk of interaction with a previously implanted PM are wearable cardioverter defibrillators (WCD) and subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICD). These two devices both use the surface electrocardiogram (ECG) in their algorithm for detecting ventricular arrhythmia. These surface ECGs seem to be prone to unipolar pacemaker stimulation artefacts. By correct programming of implanted pacemakers in the bipolar stimulation mode it is possible to avoid ECG artefacts and inadequate treatment. In baroreceptor activation therapy (BAT) there seem to be no device interactions so far, even though this device shows substantial highly frequent artefacts in the ECG. The cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) system has also until now not shown interactions with transvenous or subcutaneous ICD devices, even though randomized trials are missing.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators in patients with left ventricular assist devices: case report and comprehensive review

Background

Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are increasingly used in patients with advanced heart failure, many of whom have been or will be implanted with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Interaction between both devices is a matter of concern. Subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) obtains its signals through subcutaneous vectors, which poses special challenges with regards to adequate performance following LVAD implantation.

Case summary

We describe the case of a 24-year-old man implanted with an S-ICD because of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, severe biventricular dysfunction, and self-limiting sustained ventricular tachycardias. After the implantation of a HeartMate 3™ (Left Ventricular Assist System, Abbott) several months later, the S-ICD became useless because of inappropriate sensing due to electromagnetic interference and attenuation of QRS voltage.

Discussion

We reviewed the reported cases in PubMed about the concomitant use of S-ICD and LVAD. Seven case reports about the performance of S-ICD in patients with an LVAD were identified, with discordant results. From these articles, we analyse the potential causes for these differing results. Pump location and operating rates in LVAD, as well as changes in the subcutaneous-electrocardiogram detected by the S-ICD after LVAD implantation are related to sensing disturbances when used in the same patient.