Use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in patients with left ventricular assist devices

Diagnostic quality electrocardiogram from a HeartMate 3 supported patient using a smartphone-based recording device

Patients with implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are at risk of ventricular arrhythmias but these may be hemodynamically tolerated. An electrocardiogram (ECG) is essential to determine whether an LVAD-supported patient is experiencing a ventricular arrhythmia. Access to 12 lead ECG is predominantly in healthcare facilities. Implantable LVAD also cause significant electromagnetic interference leading to artefacts on ECG. We report a patient on Heartmate 3 LVAD with a diagnostic quality 6 lead ECG obtained with an AliveCor device during an episode of sustained palpitations. The AliveCor device may be used for remote identification of ventricular arrhythmias in LVAD patients.

ANMCO position paper: guide to the appropriate use of the wearable cardioverter defibrillator in clinical practice for patients at high transient risk of sudden cardiac death

Extended risk stratification and optimal management of patients with a permanently increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) are becoming increasingly important. There are several clinical conditions where the risk of arrhythmic death is present albeit only transient. As an example, patients with depressed left ventricular function have a high risk of SCD that may be only transient if there will be a significant recovery of function. It is important to protect the patients while receiving and titrating to the optimal dose the recommended drugs that may lead to an improved left ventricular function. In several other conditions, a transient risk of SCD can be observed even if the left ventricular function is not compromised. Examples are patients with acute myocarditis, during the diagnostic work-up of some arrhythmic conditions or after extraction of infected catheters while eradicating the associated infection. In all these conditions, it is important to offer a protection to these patients. The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is of particular importance as a temporary non-invasive technology for both arrhythmia monitoring and therapy in patients with increased risk of SCD. Previous studies have shown the WCD to be an effective and safe therapy for the prevention of SCD caused by ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation. The aim of this ANMCO position paper is to provide a recommendation for clinical utilization of the WCD in Italy, based upon current data and international guidelines. In this document, we will review the WCD functionality, indications, clinical evidence, and guideline recommendations. Finally, a recommendation for the utilization of the WCD in routine clinical practice will be presented, in order to provide physicians with a practical guidance for SCD risk stratification in patients who may benefit from this device.

Left Ventricular Assist Devices: A Primer For the General Cardiologist

Durable implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been shown to improve survival and quality of life for patients with stage D heart failure. Even though LVADs remain underused overall, the number of patients with heart failure supported with LVADs is steadily increasing. Therefore, general cardiologists will increasingly encounter these patients. In this review, we provide an overview of the field of durable LVADs. We discuss which patients should be referred for consideration of advanced heart failure therapies. We summarize the basic principles of LVAD care, including medical and surgical considerations. We also discuss the common complications associated with LVAD therapy, including bleeding, infections, thrombotic issues, and neurologic events. Our goal is to provide a primer for the general cardiologist in the recognition of patients who could benefit from LVADs and in the principles of managing patients with LVAD. Our hope is to "demystify" LVADs for the general cardiologist.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-related procedures and associated complications in continuous flow left ventricular assist device recipients: A multicenter experience

Background

Limited data exist regarding complication rates of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices (CRT-D) in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD).

Objective

We describe the incidence and characteristics of ICD- and CRT-D-related procedures and complications in a multicenter LVAD cohort.

Methods

A total of 537 LVAD patients with a pre-existing ICD or CRT-D from 5 centers were included. Details on device type, device therapies, procedural complications, and long-term survival were analyzed.

Results

Of 537 patients, 280 had a CRT-D and 257 had ICD only. During a median follow-up of 538 days, 126 patients underwent generator replacement with significantly higher rate in the CRT group (79 [28.2%] vs 47 [18.3%], P = .0006). Device-related complications occurred in 36 (13%) CRT-D and 20 (8%) ICD patients (P = .06). Incidence of pocket hematoma (3.2% vs 2.7%), infection (4.3% vs 1.6%), and lead malfunction (3.1% vs 2.8%) was similar in both groups, with no effect of device complication on long-term survival (log-rank P = .7). There was a higher incidence of post-LVAD antitachycardia pacing for ventricular arrhythmias in the CRT-D group compared to the ICD group (35% vs 26%, P = .03).

Conclusion

Cardiac implantable electronic device-related procedures are common in LVAD patients. Compared to ICD only, continued CRT-D therapy post-LVAD results in a significantly higher number of generator changes and a trend towards higher device- or lead-related complications. Device-related complications were not associated with reduced survival.

Surface mapping demonstrates compatibility of implantable loop monitor with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device

Syncope in patients with continuous‐flow left ventricular assist device may be associated with arrhythmia and difficult to determine without an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. We present a patient with continuous‐flow left ventricular assist device, no implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and recurrent syncope. An implantable loop recorder was successfully implanted with surface mapping without noise interference.

Device Therapy and Arrhythmia Management in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly used strategy for the management of patients with advanced heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Although these devices effectively improve survival, atrial and ventricular arrhythmias are common, predispose these patients to additional risk, and complicate patient management. However, there is no consensus on best practices for the medical management of these arrhythmias or on the optimal timing for procedural interventions in patients with refractory arrhythmias. Although the vast majority of these patients have preexisting cardiovascular implantable electronic devices or cardiac resynchronization therapy, given the natural history of heart failure, it is common practice to maintain cardiovascular implantable electronic device detection and therapies after LVAD implantation. Available data, however, are conflicting on the efficacy of and optimal device programming after LVAD implantation. Therefore, the primary objective of this scientific statement is to review the available evidence and to provide guidance on the management of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias in this unique patient population, as well as procedural interventions and cardiovascular implantable electronic device and cardiac resynchronization therapy programming strategies, on the basis of a comprehensive literature review by electrophysiologists, heart failure cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and cardiovascular nurse specialists with expertise in managing these patients. The structure and design of commercially available LVADs are briefly reviewed, as well as clinical indications for device implantation. The relevant physiological effects of long-term exposure to continuous-flow circulatory support are highlighted, as well as the mechanisms and clinical significance of arrhythmias in the setting of LVAD support.

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Clinical Outcomes in Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients

BACKGROUND

Many patients with heart failure continue cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) after continuous flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implant. We report the first multicenter study to assess the impact of CRT on clinical outcomes in CF-LVAD patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Analysis was performed on 488 patients (58±13 years, 81% male) with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) (n=223) or CRT-D (n=265) who underwent CF-LVAD implantation at 5 centers from 2007 to 2015. Effects of CRT on mortality, hospitalizations, and ventricular arrhythmia incidence were compared against CF-LVAD patients with an ICD alone. Baseline differences were noted between the 2 groups in age (60±12 versus 55±14, P<0.001) and QRS duration (159±29 versus 126±34, P=0.001). Median biventricular pacing in the CRT group was 96%. During a median follow-up of 478 days, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no difference in survival between groups (log rank P=0.28). Multivariate Cox regression demonstrated no survival benefit with type of device (ICD versus CRT-D; P=0.16), whereas use of amiodarone was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval 1.1-2.8, P=0.01). No differences were noted between CRT and ICD groups in all-cause (P=0.06) and heart failure (P=0.9) hospitalizations, ventricular arrhythmia incidence (43% versus 39%, P=0.3), or ICD shocks (35% versus 29%, P=0.2). During follow-up, 69 (26%) patients underwent pulse generator replacement in the CRT-D group compared with 36 (15.5%) in the ICD group (P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, multicenter CF-LVAD cohort, continued CRT was not associated with improved survival, hospitalizations, incidence of ventricular arrhythmia and ICD therapies, and was related to a significantly higher number of pulse generator changes.

The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator: current technology and evolving indications

The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator has been available for over a decade and now is frequently prescribed for patients deemed at high arrhythmic risk in whom the underlying pathology is potentially reversible or who are awaiting an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. The use of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator is included in the new 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of ventricular arrhythmias and prevention of sudden cardiac death. The present review provides insight into the current technology and an overview of this approach.

Arrhythmias in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electrical Devices after Implantation of a Left Ventricular Assist Device

Utilization of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) for advanced heart failure is increasing, and the role of cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIED) is unclear. Prior studies of the incidence of arrhythmias and shocks are frequently limited by ascertainment. One hundred and seventy-eight patients were examined with a previous CIED who were implanted with a CF-LVAD. Medical history, medications, and CIED data from device interrogations were gathered. A cardiac surgery control group (n = 38) was obtained to control for surgical factors. Several clinically significant events increased after LVAD implantation: treated-zone ventricular arrhythmias (VA; p < 0.01), monitored-zone VA (p < 0.01), antitachycardia pacing (ATP)-terminated episodes (p < 0.01), and shocks (p = 0.01), although administered shocks later decreased (p < 0.01). Presence of a preimplant VA was associated with postoperative VA (odds ratio [OR]: 4.31; confidence interval [CI]: 1.5-12.3, p < 0.01). Relative to cardiac surgery, LVAD patients experienced more perioperative events (i.e., monitored VAs and shocks, p < 0.01 and p = 0.04). Neither implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks before implant nor early or late postimplant arrhythmias or shocks predicted survival (p = 0.07, p = 0.55, and p = 0.55). Our experience demonstrates time-dependent effects on clinically significant arrhythmias after LVAD implantation, including evidence that early LVAD-related arrhythmias may be caused by the unique arrhythmogenic effects of VAD implant.

Wearable cardioverter defibrillator: Bridge or alternative to implantation?

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is effective to prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD) in selected patients with heart disease known to be at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Nevertheless, this invasive and definitive therapy is not indicated in patients with potentially transient or reversible causes of sudden death, or in patients with temporary contra-indication for ICD placement. The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is increasingly used for SCD prevention both in patients awaiting ICD implantation or with an estimated high risk of ventricular arrhythmia though to be transient. We conducted a review of current clinical uses and benefits of the WCD, and described its technical aspects, limitations and perspectives.

Arterial pulsatility under phasic left ventricular assist device support

The aim of this study is to understand whether the phasic Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device (CF-LVAD) support would increase the arterial pulsatility. A Micromed DeBakey CF-LVAD was used to apply phasic support in an ex-vivo experimental platform. CF-LVAD was operated over a cardiac cycle by phase-shifting the pulsatile pump control with respect to the heart cycle, in 0.05 s increments in each experiment. The pump flow rate was selected as the control variable and a reference model was used to operate the CF-LVAD at a pulsatile speed. Arterial pulse pressure was the highest (9 mmHg) when the peak pump flow is applied at the peak systole under varying speed CF-LVAD support over a cardiac cycle while it was the lowest (2 mmHg) when the peak pump flow was applied in the diastolic phase. The mean arterial pressure and mean CF-LVAD output were the same in each experiment while arterial pulse pressure and pulsatility index varied depending on the phase of reference pump flow rate signal. CF-LVAD speed should be synchronized considering the timing of peak systole over a cardiac cycle to increase the arterial pulsatility. Moreover, it is possible to decrease the arterial pulsatility under counter-pulsating CF-LVAD support.

Enhancement of Arterial Pressure Pulsatility by Controlling Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Flow Rate in Mock Circulatory System

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) generally operate at a constant speed, which reduces pulsatility in the arteries and may lead to complications such as functional changes in the vascular system, gastrointestinal bleeding, or both. The purpose of this study is to increase the arterial pulse pressure and pulsatility by controlling the CF-LVAD flow rate. A MicroMed DeBakey pump was used as the CF-LVAD. A model simulating the flow rate through the aortic valve was used as a reference model to drive the pump. A mock circulation containing two synchronized servomotor-operated piston pumps acting as left and right ventricles was used as a circulatory system. Proportional-integral control was used as the control method. First, the CF-LVAD was operated at a constant speed. With pulsatile-speed CF-LVAD assistance, the pump was driven such that the same mean pump output was generated. Continuous and pulsatile-speed CF-LVAD assistance provided the same mean arterial pressure and flow rate, while the index of pulsatility increased significantly for both arterial pressure and pump flow rate signals under pulsatile speed pump support. This study shows the possibility of improving the pulsatility of CF-LVAD support by regulating pump speed over a cardiac cycle without reducing the overall level of support.

[Rehabilitation standards for follow-up treatment and rehabilitation of patients with ventricular assist device (VAD)]

The increasing use of ventricular assist devices (VADs) in terminal heart failure patients provides new challenges to cardiac rehabilitation physicians. Structured cardiac rehabilitation strategies are still poorly implemented for this special patient group. Clear guidance and more evidence for optimal modalities are needed. Thereby, attention has to be paid to specific aspects, such as psychological and social support and education (e.g., device management, INR self-management, drive-line care, and medication).In Germany, the post-implant treatment and rehabilitation of VAD Patients working group was founded in 2012. This working group has developed clear recommendations for the rehabilitation of VAD patients according to the available literature. All facets of VAD patients' rehabilitation are covered. The present paper is unique in Europe and represents a milestone to overcome the heterogeneity of VAD patient rehabilitation.

Arrhythmias in children with ventricular assist devices

BACKGROUND

Children with decompensated heart failure are at high risk for arrhythmias, and ventricular assist device placement is becoming a more common treatment strategy. The impact of ventricular assist devices on arrhythmias and how arrhythmias affect the clinical course of this population are not well described.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A single-centre retrospective analysis of children receiving a ventricular assist device between 1998 and 2011 was performed. In all, 45 patients received 56 ventricular assist devices. The median age at initial placement was 13 years (interquartile range 6-15). The median duration of support was 10 days (range 2-260). The aetiology of heart failure included cardiomyopathy, transplant rejection, myocarditis, and congenital heart disease. In all, 32 patients (71%) had an arrhythmia; 19 patients (42%) had an arrhythmia before ventricular assist device and eight patients (18%) developed new arrhythmias on ventricular assist device. Ventricular tachycardia was most common (25/32, 78%). There was no correlation between arrhythmia and risk of death or transplantation (p=0.14). Of the 15 patients who weaned from ventricular assist device, post-ventricular assist device arrhythmias occurred in nine (60%), with five (33%) having their first arrhythmia after weaning. Patients with ventricular dysfunction after ventricular assist device were more likely to have arrhythmias (p<0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Arrhythmias, especially ventricular, are common in children requiring ventricular assist device. They frequently persist for those able to wean from ventricular assist device.

Impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy on clinical outcomes in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) can improve survival in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients. However, the impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) on outcomes in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) patients is not known. We sought to determine if CRT-D improved clinical outcomes in CF-LVAD patients compared with ICDs alone.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Sixty-one consecutive CF-LVAD patients with an ICD or CRT-D were evaluated. Impacts of CRT-D on mortality, all-cause hospitalization, and incidence of atrial (AA) and ventricular (VA) arrhythmias after LVAD implantation was compared with patients with ICD alone. Of the 61 LVAD patients, 31 (age 59.8 ± 16 years, 84% male) had CRT-D and 30 (age 57.2 ± 13 years, 74% male) had ICD. Before LVAD implantation, no significant differences were noted between the groups in demographic and clinical characteristics, LVAD indications, and incidence of AA and VA. Over 682 ± 45 days of LVAD support, 8 patients (25.8%) died in the CRT-D arm versus 5 (16.7%) in the ICD arm (P = .35). No differences were noted between the CRT-D and ICD groups in all-cause (96.8 vs 93.3%; P = .63) and HF (19.4 vs 26.7%; P = .78) hospitalizations, left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic diameter (6.4 ± 1.5 vs 6.2 ± 1.1 cm, P = .47), and incidence of AA (35.4% vs 33.3%; P = .80), VA (29% vs 26.6%; P = .86), and ICD shocks (22.6% vs 16.7%; P = .93). Beta-blocker and antiarrhythmic drug use after LVAD implantation was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with refractory HF who received CF-LVADs, CRT-D, compared with ICD, did not significantly improve mortality, all-cause hospitalization, LV dimensions, and incidence of AA and VA.

Clinical experience of combined HeartWare ventricular assist device and implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy

INTRODUCTION

The HeartWare continuous flow ventricular assist device (HVAD) is used in an increasing number of heart failure patients. In those patients, ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) are common and, consequently, many patients already have an implanted implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in place or receive ICD implantation after left ventricular assist device implantation. However, limited data on feasibility and necessity of combined ICD and HVAD therapy are available. In this study we present our technical and clinical experience.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between 01/2010 and 06/2013, 41 patients received HVAD implantation. Twenty-six HVAD patients who already had an ICD device placed prior to HVAD implantation or received ICD implantation afterwards were enrolled in this study. Peri- and postoperative complications as well as ICD interrogations were documented and analyzed retrospectively. Mean patients age was 58.4 ± 12.6 years; 88.5% of patients were male. During mean follow-up of 12.2 ± 8.9 months, appropriate ICD interventions occurred in 9 patients (34.6%) due to ventricular tachyarrhythmia (n = 7) or ventricular fibrillation (n = 2). An inappropriate ICD intervention was seen in 1 patient (3.9%) due to tachycardic atrial fibrillation. Patients on HVAD with a history of VAs (n = 13) had a significantly higher incidence of ICD interventions compared to patients with primary prophylactic indication for ICD (n = 13; 53.8% vs. 7.7%; P = 0.015). No disturbance of ICD function was seen after HVAD implantation.

CONCLUSION

Combined ICD and HVAD therapy was safe and feasible, without electromagnetic interference between ICD and ventricular assist device. The incidence of ICD interventions was high in patients with a history of VAs, but low in patients with ICD implantation for primary prevention.