Ventricular arrhythmias following continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation: A systematic review

How to diagnose and manage emergency medical conditions in patients on left ventricular assist device support: A clinician's field guide

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have revolutionized the treatment of advanced heart failure, providing mechanical circulatory support for patients awaiting heart transplantation or as destination therapy. However, patients on LVAD support are susceptible to a range of emergency medical conditions that require prompt recognition, intervention, and multidisciplinary management. This review paper aims to provide an algorithmic approach and a field guide on the diagnosis and management of emergency medical conditions in LVAD patients, including LVAD alarms, gastrointestinal bleeding, cerebrovascular accidents, pump thrombosis and obstruction, unresponsiveness, and electrical shock by the defibrillator. By understanding the mechanisms, clinical presentation, diagnostic evaluation, and therapeutic strategies associated with these conditions, healthcare providers can improve patient outcomes and optimize LVAD care.

Early Ventricular Arrhythmias After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

BACKGROUND

Although sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) are a common complication after durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, the incidence, risk factors, and prognostic implications of postoperative early VAs (EVAs) in contemporary patients with LVAD are poorly understood.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A single-center retrospective analysis was performed of patients who underwent LVAD implantation from October 1, 2006, to October 1, 2022. EVA was defined as an episode of sustained VA identified ≤30 days after LVAD implantation. A total of 789 patients underwent LVAD implantation (mean age 62.9 ± 0. years 5, HeartMate 3 41.4%, destination therapy 43.3%). EVAs occurred in 100 patients (12.7%). A history of end-stage renal disease (odds ratio [OR] 5.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-21.70), preoperative electrical storm (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.11-7.16), and appropriate implantable cardiac defibrillator therapy before implantation (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.26-6.19) are independently associated with EVAs. EVA was associated with decreased 30-day survival (hazard ratio 3.02, 95% CI 1.1-8.3, P = .032). There was no difference in transplant-free survival time between patients with and without EVAs (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.5-1.4, P = .454).

CONCLUSIONS

EVAs are common after durable LVAD implantation and are associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality.

Catheter Ablation for Tachyarrhythmias in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients: Clinical Significance and Technical Tips

The demand for durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has been increasing worldwide in tandem with the rising population of advanced heart failure patients. Especially in cases of destination therapy, instead of bridges to transplantation, LVADs require a lifelong commitment. With the increase in follow-up periods after implantation and given the lack of donor hearts, the need for managing concomitant tachyarrhythmias has arisen. Atrial and ventricular arrhythmias are documented in approximately 20% to 50% of LVAD recipients during long-term device support, according to previous registries. Atrial arrhythmias, primarily atrial fibrillation, generally exhibit good hemodynamic tolerance; therefore, catheter ablation cannot be easily recommended due to the risk of a residual iatrogenic atrial septal defect that may lead to a right-to-left shunt under durable LVAD supports. The clinical impacts of ventricular arrhythmias, mainly ventricular tachycardia, may vary depending on the time periods following the index implantation. Early occurrence after the operation affects the hospitalization period and mortality; however, the late onset of ventricular tachycardia causes varying prognostic impacts on a case-by-case basis. In cases of hemodynamic instability, catheter ablation utilizing a trans-septal approach is necessary to stabilize hemodynamics. Nonetheless, in some cases originating from the intramural region or the epicardium, procedural failure may occur with the endocardial ablation. Specialized complications associated with the state of LVAD support should be carefully considered when conducting procedures. In LVAD patients, electrophysiologists, circulatory support specialists, and surgeons should collaborate as an integrated team to address the multifaceted issues related to arrhythmia management.

Association of pre-left ventricular assist device defibrillator shocks for ventricular arrhythmia with clinical outcomes after left ventricular assist device implantation

Background

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillation (ICD) shocks after left ventricular assist device therapy (LVAD) are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Little is known about the association of pre-LVAD ICD shocks on post-LVAD clinical outcomes and whether LVAD therapy affects the prevalence of ICD shocks.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to determine whether pre-LVAD ICD shocks are associated with adverse clinical outcomes post-LVAD and to compare the prevalence of ICD shocks before and after LVAD therapy.

Methods

Patients 18 years or older with continuous-flow LVADs and ICDs were retrospectively identified within the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center system from 2006-2020. We analyzed the association between appropriate ICD shocks within 1 year pre-LVAD with a primary composite outcome of death, stroke, and pump thrombosis and secondary outcomes of post-LVAD ICD shocks and ICD shock hospitalizations.

Results

Among 309 individuals, average age was 57 ± 12 years, 87% were male, 80% had ischemic cardiomyopathy, and 42% were bridge to transplantation. Seventy-one patients (23%) experienced pre-LVAD shocks, and 69 (22%) experienced post-LVAD shocks. The overall prevalence of shocks pre-LVAD and post-LVAD were not different. Pre-LVAD ICD shocks were not associated with the composite outcome. Pre-LVAD ICD shocks were found to predict post-LVAD shocks (hazard ratio [HR] 5.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.42-9.48; P <.0001) and hospitalizations related to ICD shocks from ventricular arrhythmia (HR 10.34; 95% CI 4.1-25.7; P <.0001).

Conclusion

Pre-LVAD ICD shocks predicted post-LVAD ICD shocks and hospitalizations but were not associated with the composite outcome of death, pump thrombosis, or stroke at 1 year. The prevalence of appropriate ICD shocks was similar before and after LVAD implantation in the entire cohort.

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.

Stable Ventricular Fibrillation: A Paradigm Rather Than Septal Shift?

Awake patients in ventricular fibrillation is a phenomenon limited to patients who are mechanically supported. We describe a cohort of patients supported by left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) presenting to the emergency department (ED) at a high-volume LVAD center while in awake ventricular fibrillation (VF)/ventricular tachycardia (VT). Among 175 patients reviewed, a total of 19 LVAD patients presented to the ED in awake VF/VT between December 2015 and July 2021. On ED presentation, patients maintained a median mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) of 70 mm Hg with a mean LVAD flow of 3.77 L/minute. ED management included cardioversion in the majority of cases: 58% were defibrillated once, 21% were defibrillated multiple times, 68% received amiodarone, and 21% received lidocaine. Inpatient management included defibrillation, ablation, and antiarrhythmic initiation in 37%, 11%, and 84% of cases, respectively. In total, five patients (26%) died with one death attributed to recurrent VT. Our findings support the short-term tolerability of sustained ventricular arrhythmias in LVAD patients, as evidenced by the maintained MAPs and mental status. Clinical teams, however, should be aware of the potential harbinger for in-hospital mortality heralded by an awake VF/VT presentation.

Multidisciplinary Critical Care Management of Electrical Storm: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Electrical storm (ES) reflects life-threatening cardiac electrical instability with 3 or more ventricular arrhythmia episodes within 24 hours. Identification of underlying arrhythmogenic cardiac substrate and reversible triggers is essential, as is interrogation and programming of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, if present. Medical management includes antiarrhythmic drugs, beta-adrenergic blockade, sedation, and hemodynamic support. The initial intensity of these interventions should be matched to the severity of ES using a stepped-care algorithm involving escalating treatments for higher-risk presentations or recurrent ventricular arrhythmias. Many patients with ES are considered for catheter ablation, which may require the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support. Outcomes after ES are poor, including frequent ES recurrences and deaths caused by progressive heart failure and other cardiac causes. A multidisciplinary collaborative approach to the management of ES is crucial, and evaluation for heart transplantation or palliative care is often appropriate, even for patients who survive the initial episode.

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.

Open Ablation of the Left Ventricle During Implantation of a Left Ventricular Assist Device

This report describes the successful treatment of persistent ventricular tachycardia in a 66-year-old patient with ischemic cardiomyopathy during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Recurrent episodes of ventricular tachycardia led to cardiac decompensation necessitating LVAD implantation. After opening the left ventricle, an AtriCure Isolator Synergy OLL2 radiofrequency clamp was used to perform 4 sets of transmural lesions. Transmurality was observed in all lesions. A HeartMate 3 (Abbott) LVAD was implanted in standard fashion. The lesions were connected with an epicardial ablation line using a radiofrequency catheter. The patient was discharged home without complications and with a stable rhythm.

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.

Impact of Ventricular Arrhythmia on LVAD Implantation Admission Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) are common after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation though data are mixed on whether these events have an impact on mortality.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2002 - 2019 was queried for LVAD implantation admissions. Secondary ICD codes were analyzed to assess for the occurrence of VAs during this admission. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for confounding variables between those with versus without VAs.

RESULTS

The NIS database from 2002 - 2019 contained 43,936 admissions with LVAD implantation. VAs occurred in 19,985 (45.4%) patients. After PSM, the study cohort consisted of 39,989 patients, 19,985 (50.0%) of which had a secondary diagnosis of VA during the admission. When compared to those without VA, those with VA were at no higher risk for in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.011, 99.9% CI 0.956 - 1.069, p = 0.699). Those with a VA were at higher risk for cardiogenic shock and requiring mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. Patients with a VA were also at lower risk for device thrombosis. Conversely, the VA group was at no higher risk for stroke. In comparing trends from 2002 to 2019, the incidence of VAs has increased, while the mortality rate of those with and without VAs has decreased during this same period.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study of the NIS database, VAs were common (45.4%) during the LVAD implantation admission. However, the occurrence of VAs during the implantation admission did not alter in-hospital mortality. More longitudinal studies are required to assess the long-term impact of VAs on mortality. In comparing trends from 2002 - 2019, the incidence of VAs has increased, while the mortality rate of those with and without VAs has decreased.

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

Background

Ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) are observed in 25%–50% of continuous‐flow left ventricular assist device (CF‐LVAD) recipients, but their role on mortality is debated.

Methods

Sixty‐nine consecutive patients with a CF‐LVAD were retrospectively analyzed. Study endpoints were death and occurrence of first episode of VAs post CF‐LVAD implantation. Early VAs were defined as VAs in the first month after CF‐LVAD implantation.

Results

During a median follow‐up of 29.0 months, 19 patients (27.5%) died and 18 patients (26.1%) experienced VAs. Three patients experienced early VAs, and one of them died. Patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT‐D) showed a trend toward more VAs (p = 0.076), compared to patients without CRT‐D; no significant difference in mortality was found between patients with and without CRT‐D (p = 0.63). Patients with biventricular (BiV) pacing ≥98% experienced more frequently VAs (p = 0.046), with no difference in mortality (p = 0.56), compared to patients experiencing BiV pacing <98%. There was no difference in mortality among patients with or without VAs after CF‐LVAD [5 patients (27.8%) vs. 14 patients (27.5%), p = 0.18)], and patients with or without previous history of VAs (p = 0.95). Also, there was no difference in mortality among patients with a different timing of implant of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD), before and after CF‐LVAD (p = 0.11).

Conclusions

VAs in CF‐LVAD are a common clinical problem, but they do not impact mortality. Timing of ICD implantation does not have a significant impact on patients' survival. Patients with BiV pacing ≥98% experienced more frequently VAs.

Association Between Biventricular Pacing and Incidence of Ventricular Arrhythmias in the Early Post-Operative Period after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) improve outcomes in heart failure patients. Early ventricular arrhythmias (VA) are common after LVAD and are associated with increased mortality. The association between left ventricular pacing (LVP) with CRT and VAs in the early post-LVAD period remains unclear.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of all patients undergoing LVAD implantation from 1/2016 - 12/2019. Patients were divided into those with CRT and active LVP (CRT-LVP) immediately post-LVAD implant versus those without CRT-LVP. ICD electrograms were reviewed and early VAs were defined as sustained VT/VF occurring within 30 days of LVAD implantation.

RESULTS

Of 186 included patients (mean age 53 years, 75% male, mean BMI 28), 72 had CRT devices, 63 of whom had LV pacing enabled after LVAD implant (CRT-LVP group). Patients with CRT-LVP were more likely to have VA in the early post-operative period (21% vs 4%; p=0.0001). All 9 patients with CRT in whom LVP was disabled had no early VA. Among those with early VA, patients with CRT-LVP were more likely to have monomorphic VT (77% vs 40%; p=0.07). In multiple logistic regression, CRT-LVP pacing remained an independent predictor of early VA after adjustment for history of VA and AF.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CRT-LVP after LVAD implant had a higher incidence of early VA (specifically monomorphic VT). Epicardial LV pacing may be proarrhythmic in the early post-operative period after LVAD. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Electrophysiologic Changes and Their Effects on Ventricular Arrhythmias in Patients with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices

Ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) continue even after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The effect of LVAD on VAs is controversial. We investigated electrophysiologic changes after LVAD and its effects on VAs development. A total of 107 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients, with LVAD, were included in this study. Electrocardiographic parameters including QRS duration (between the beginning of the QRS complex and the end of the S wave), QT duration (between the first deflection of the QRS complex and the end of the T wave) corrected QT (QTc), QTc dispersion, fragmented QRS (F-QRS), and ICD recordings before, and post-LVAD first year were analyzed. All sustained VAs were classified as polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (PVT) or monomorphic VT (MVT). The QRS, QT, QTc durations, and QTc dispersion had decreased significantly after LVAD implantation (p < 0.001 for all). Also MVT increased significantly from 28.9% to 49.5% (p = 0.019) whereas PVT decreased from 27.1% to 4.67% (p = 0.04) compared to pre-LVAD period. A strong correlation was found between QT shortening and the decrease in PVT occurrence. Besides, the increase in the F-QRS after LVAD was associated with post-LVAD de nova MVT development. Finally, F-QRS before LVAD was found as an independent predictor of post-LVAD late VAs in multivariate analysis. Pre-existing or newly developed F-QRS was associated with post-LVAD late VAs, and it may be used to determine the risk of VAs after LVAD implantation.

Ablation therapy for ventricular arrhythmias in patients with LVAD: Multiple faces of an electrophysiological challenge

Left ventricular assist device implantation is a recognized treatment option for patients with advanced heart failure refractory to medical therapy and can be used both as bridge to transplantation and as destination therapy. The risk of ventricular arrhythmias is common after left ventricular assist device implantation and is influenced by pre-, peri and post-operative determinants. The management of ventricular arrhythmias can be a challenge when they become refractory to medication or to device therapy and their impact on prognosis can be detrimental despite the mechanical support. In this setting, catheter ablation is being increasingly recognized as a feasible option for patients in which standard therapeutic strategies fail, but also with preventive purpose. Catheter ablation is being increasingly considered for the management of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with left ventricular assist device despite complex clinical and technical peculiarities due to the characteristics of the mechanical support. Much conflicting data exist regarding the predictors of success of the procedure and the rate of recurrence. In this review we discuss the latest evidences regarding catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias in this subset of patients, focusing on clinical characteristics, arrhythmia etiology, technical aspects and postprocedural features which must be considered by the electrophysiologist.

Electromagnetic interference between implantable cardiac devices and continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: a review

Many patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVAD) have other, co-existing implantable cardiac devices. While such devices often function appropriately, there is potential for electromagnetic interference (EMI). A literature review was performed to identify cases of EMI between CF-LVAD and other implanted cardiac devices to better understand their etiology, outcomes, and the strategies used to overcome such interference. The cases identified included interference between CF-LVAD and pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy. The EMI reported in the current literature can be broken down into two general categories: interference leading to difficulty establishing telemetry and interference leading to impaired electrical signal sensing. Such interference led to inappropriate shock delivery in some cases. The type of interference, and thus treatments, differed and were device dependent. The strategies employed to reduce interference included metal shielding, physical manipulation to increase the distance between devices, and even exchange of the implanted device with another brand of the same class. To avoid such EMI in the future, physicians must be aware of the reported interference between certain devices, and manufacturers must work more closely to increase the compatibility of implanted cardiac devices.