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

Real-world data of patients affected by advanced heart failure treated with implantable cardioverter defibrillator and left ventricular assist device: Results of a multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist device (L-VAD) implantation is increasingly used in patients with heart failure (HF) and most patients also have an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Limited data are available on the incidence of ICD therapies and complications in this special setting. The aim of this study was to analyze the real-world incidence and predictors of ICD therapies, complications and interactions between ICD and L-VAD.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter retrospective observational study in patients with advanced HF implanted with ICD and a continuous-flow L-VAD, followed-up in five advanced HF centers in Northern Italy.

RESULTS

A total of 234 patients (89.7% male, median age 59, 48.3% with ischemic etiology) were enrolled. After a median follow-up of 21 months, 66 patients (28.2%) experienced an appropriate ICD therapy, 22 patients (9.4%) an inappropriate ICD therapy, and 17 patients (7.3%) suffered from an interaction between ICD and L-VAD. The composite outcome of all ICD-related complications was reported in 41 patients (17.5%), and 121 (51.7%) experienced an L-VAD-related complication. At multivariable analysis, an active ventricular tachycardia (VT) zone and a prior ICD generator replacement were independent predictors of ICD therapies and of total ICD-related complications, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world patients with both L-VAD and ICD experience a high rate of ICD therapies and complications. Our findings suggest the importance of tailoring device programming in order to minimize the incidence of unnecessary ICD therapies, thus sparing the need for ICD generator replacement, a procedure associated to a high risk of complications.

Managing ventricular arrhythmias and implantable cardiac defibrillator shocks after left ventricular assist device implantation

Continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) have been shown to reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with advanced heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, ventricular arrhythmias (VA) are common, are mostly secondary to underlying myocardial scar, and have a higher incidence in patients with pre-LVAD VA. Sustained VA is well tolerated in the LVAD patient but can result in implantable defibrillator (ICD) shocks, right ventricular failure, hospitalizations, and reduced quality of life. There is limited data regarding best practices for the medical management of VA as well as the role for procedural interventions in patients with uncontrolled VA and/or ICD shocks. Vast majority of CF-LVAD patients have a preexisting cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) and ICD and/or cardiac resynchronization therapies are continued in many. Several questions, however, remain regarding the efficacy of ICD and CRT following CF-LVAD. Moreover, optimal CIED programming after CF-LVAD implantation. Therefore, the primary objective of this review article is to provide the most up-to-date evidence and to provide guidance on the clinical significance, pathogenesis, predictors, and management strategies for VA and ICD therapies in the CF-LVAD population. We also discuss knowledge gaps as well as areas for future research.

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.

The Role of Daily Implant-Based Multiparametric Telemonitoring in Patients with a Ventricular Assist Device

The telemonitoring of heart failure (HF) patients is becoming increasingly important. This study aimed to evaluate the benefit of telemonitoring in end-stage HF patients with a ventricular-assistance device (VAD). A total of 26 HF-patients (66 ± 11 years, 88% male) on VAD therapy with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or a cardiac resynchronization defibrillator (CRT-D) including telemonitoring function were enrolled. The long-term follow-up data (4.10 ± 2.58 years) were assessed. All the patients (n = 26, 100%) received daily ICD/CRT-D telemonitoring. In most of the patients (73%, n = 19), the telemedical center had to take action for a mean of three times. An acute alert due to sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) occurred in 12 patients (63%) with 50% of them (n = 6) requiring ICD shock delivery. Eight patients (67%) were hospitalized due to symptomatic VAs. In 11 patients (92%), immediate medication adjustments were recommended. Relevant lead issues were revealed in thirteen patients (50%), with six patients (46%) undergoing consecutive lead revisions. Most of the events (83%) were detected within 24 h. Daily telemonitoring significantly reduced the number of in-hospital device controls by 44% (p < 0.01). The telemonitoring ensured that cardiac arrhythmias and device/lead problems were identified early, allowing pre-emptive and prompt interventions. In addition, the telemonitoring significantly reduced the number of in-hospital device controls in this cohort of HF patients.

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.

Another Strike Against Continuing Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Left Ventricular Assist Device recipients?

Continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are an important therapeutic strategy, either as a bridge to transplant, bridge to recovery or as destination therapy, in patients with end-stage heart failure. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.

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.

Impact of ultra-conservative ICD programming in patients with LVADs: Avoiding potentially unnecessary tachy-therapies

BACKGROUND

Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) often tolerate ventricular arrhythmias (VA). We aim to assess the frequency and outcomes of ICD therapies averted by ultraconservative ICD programming (UCP) in LVAD patients.

METHODS

This single center, retrospective cohort study included patients with LVADs and ICDs implanted from 2015 to 2019 that had UCP. The aim for UCP was to maximally delay VA treatments and maximize anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) prior to ICD shocks. VA events were reviewed after UCP and evaluated under prior conservative programming to assess for potentially averted events (that would have resulted in either ATP or defibrillation with prior programming).

RESULTS

Fifty patients were included in the study with follow-up of median 16 ± 10.2 months after UCP. The median time from LVAD implantation to reprogramming was 7 days (IQR 5-9 days). Fourteen patients (28%) had potentially averted VA events that would have been treated with their prior ICD programming (82 total events, median two events per patient, IQR 1-10 events). Treated VA events occurred in 15 patients (30%). Eleven of the 14 patients with potentially averted VAs had treated events as well. Only one patient reported definitive symptoms of self-limited "dizziness" during a potentially averted event that did not result in hospitalization. No patients died of complications from or needed emergent care/hospitalization due a potentially averted VA.

CONCLUSIONS

UCP in LVAD patients likely prevented unnecessary VA treatments in many patients with minimal reported symptoms during these potentially averted events. Prospective studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in continuous flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from ELECTRAM Investigators

Introduction

Whether cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) continues to augment left ventricular remodeling in patients with the continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (cf-LVAD) remains unclear.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all clinical studies examining the role of continued CRT in end-stage heart failure patients with cf-LVAD reporting all-cause mortality, ventricular arrhythmias, and ICD shocks. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (RR) random-effects model was used to summarize data.

Results

Eight studies (7 retrospective and 1 randomized) with a total of 1,208 unique patients met inclusion criteria. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86 - 1.35, p = 0.51, I2=0%), all-cause hospitalization (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76-1.34, p = 0.95, I²=11%), ventricular arrhythmias (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83 - 1.39, p = 0.58, I² =50%) and ICD shocks (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.57 - 1.33, p = 0.52, I² =65%) comparing CRT versus non-CRT. Subgroup analysis demonstrated significant reduction in ventricular arrhythmias (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 - 0.90, p = 0.001) and ICD shocks (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 - 0.97, p = 0.04) in "CRT on" group versus "CRT off" group.

Conclusions

CRT was not associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality or increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias and ICD shocks compared to non-CRT in cf-LVAD patients. It remains to be determined which subgroup of cf-LVAD patients benefit from CRT. The findings of our study are intriguing, and therefore, larger studies in a randomized prospective manner should be undertaken to address this specifically.

HFA of the ESC Position paper on the management of LVAD supported patients for the non LVAD specialist healthcare provider Part 1: Introduction and at the non-hospital settings in the community

The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of the LVAD‐supported patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD‐supported patients. The expected and non‐expected device‐related and patient–device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of the LVAD implanting centres. The ageing of the LVAD‐supported patients, mainly those supported with the ‘destination therapy’ indication, increases the risk for those patients to experience comorbidities common in the older population. The probability of an LVAD‐supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local emergency department, internal, or surgical ward of a non‐LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this trilogy is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non‐LVAD specialized physician: ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, internists, anaesthesiologists, and surgeons, to comply with the medical needs of this fast‐growing population of LVAD‐supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually to the discharge home from the hospital back to the general practitioner. In this first part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD‐supported patients for the non‐LVAD specialist healthcare provider, after the introduction on the assist devices technology in general, definitions and structured approach to the assessment of the LVAD‐supported patient in the ambulance and emergency department is presented including cardiopulmonary resuscitation for LVAD‐supported patients.

Management of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with LVAD

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have extended the life expectancy of patients with heart failure. The hemodynamic support afforded by LVADs in this population has also resulted in patients having prolonged ventricular arrhythmias. The purpose of this article is to review the mechanisms of ventricular arrhythmias in LVADs and the available management strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent evidence suggests that prolonged ventricular arrhythmias may result in increased mortality in patients with LVADs.

SUMMARY

Successful management of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with LVAD requires interdisciplinary collaboration between electrophysiology and heart failure specialists. Medical management, including changes to LVAD changes, heart failure medication management, and antiarrhythmics constitute the initial treatment for ventricular arrhythmias. Surgical or endocardial ablation are reasonable options if VAs are refractory.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead revision following left ventricular assist device implantation

INTRODUCTION

Lead dysfunction can lead to serious consequences including failure to treat ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation (VT/VF). The incidence and mechanisms of lead dysfunction following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation are not well-described. We sought to determine the incidence, mechanisms, timing, and complications of right ventricular lead dysfunction requiring revision following LVAD implantation.

METHODS

Retrospective observational chart review of all LVAD recipients with pre-existing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) from 2009 to 2018 was performed including device interrogation reports, laboratory and imaging data, procedural reports, and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 583 patients with an ICD in situ undergoing LVAD implant, the median (interquartile range) age was 62.5 (15.7) years, 21% were female, and the types of LVADs included HeartWare HVAD (26%), HeartMate II (52%), and HeartMate III (22%). Right ventricular lead revision was performed in 38 patients (6.5%) at a median (25th, 75th) of 16.4 (3.6, 29.2) months following LVAD. Mechanisms of lead dysfunction included macrodislodgement (n = 4), surgical lead injury (n = 4), recall (n = 3), insulation failure (n = 8) or conductor fracture (n = 7), and alterations in the lead-myocardial interface (n = 12). Undersensing requiring revision occurred in 22 (58%) cases. Clinical sequelae of undersensing included failure to detect VT/VF (n = 4) and pacing-induced torsade de pointes (n = 1). Oversensing occurred in 12 (32%) and sequelae included inappropriate antitachycardia pacing ([ATP], n = 8), inappropriate ICD shock (n = 6), and ATP-induced VT (n = 1).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of right ventricular lead dysfunction following LVAD implantation is significant and has important clinical sequelae. Physicians should remain vigilant for lead dysfunction after LVAD surgery and test lead function before discharge.

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

Ventricular arrhythmias (VA) are not uncommon after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation. In this systematic review, we sought to identify the patterns of VA that occurred following CF-LVAD implantation and evaluate their outcomes. An electronic search was performed to identify all articles reporting the development of VA following CF-LVAD implantation. VA was defined as any episode of ventricular fibrillation (VF) or sustained (>30 seconds) ventricular tachycardia (VT). Eleven studies were pooled for the analysis that included 393 CF-LVAD patients with VA. The mean patient age was 57 years [95%CI: 54; 61] and 82% [95%CI: 73; 88] were male. Overall, 37% [95%CI: 19; 60] of patients experienced a new onset VA after CF-LVAD implantation, while 60% [95%CI: 51; 69] of patients had a prior history of VA. Overall, 88% of patients [95%CI: 78; 94] were supported on HeartMate II CF-LVAD, 6% [95%CI: 3; 14] on HeartWare HVAD, and 6% [95%CI: 2; 13] on other CF-LVADs. VA was symptomatic in 47% [95%CI: 28; 68] of patients and in 50% [95%CI: 37; 52], early VA (<30 days from CF-LVAD) was observed. The 30-day mortality rate was 7% [95%CI: 5; 11]. Mean follow-up was 22.9 months [95%CI: 4.8; 40.8], during which 27% [95%CI: 17; 39] of patients underwent heart transplantation. In conclusion, approximately a third of patients had new VA following CF-LVAD placement. VA in CF-LVAD patients is often symptomatic, necessitates treatment, and carries a worse prognosis.

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.

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Patients With Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices: Utilization Patterns, Related Procedures, and Complications

Background

The effect of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) on outcomes has not been evaluated in a randomized clinical trial.

Methods and Results

This is a retrospective single‐center study that included patients who underwent continuous flow LVAD implantation at the Cleveland Clinic between October 2004 and March 2017. Patients were evaluated according to the presence or absence of ICD at the time of LVAD insertion. Among 486 patients in the study cohort, 387 (79.6%) had an ICD before LVAD insertion. Patients with ICD before LVAD were older and had lower use of pre‐LVAD inotropes, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and mechanical ventilation. There were 81 patients (21.4% of patients with ICD) who required 93 procedures after LVAD: 74 generator exchanges, 12 lead revisions, and 7 complete system removals because of infection. Of the 99 patients without ICD, 52 (53%) underwent ICD implantation: 29 for primary prevention and 23 for secondary prevention. Patients were followed for a median of 401 (interquartile range 150–966) days. The presence of a pre‐LVAD ICD was not associated with mortality in a multivariable model (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.73–1.93, P=0.492), nor was the presence of an ICD at any point when analyzed as a time‐varying covariate (hazard ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.50–2.20, P=0.907).

Conclusions

There is no apparent mortality benefit associated with an ICD in a contemporary cohort of patients with continuous flow LVADs to balance considerable morbidity involving ICD‐related procedures and complications.

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.

When Should the Electrophysiologist Be Involved in Managing Patients with Ventricular Assist Devices and Ventricular Arrhythmias?

The successful management of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in people with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) is often complex. The need for and the role of defibrillator therapy is continually evolving in this group. VAs occur frequently and significantly impact the clinical course of patients with LVADs. The management of VAs begins prior to LVAD implantation and typically involves appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator use and programming after the fact. Surgical ablation during LVAD implantation and supplementary catheter ablation performed as needed are attractive options for the management of VAs in this population. The performance of catheter ablation is generally safe and feasible after LVAD implantation with a team approach.

EHRA White Paper: knowledge gaps in arrhythmia management—status 2019

Clinicians accept that there are many unknowns when we make diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. Acceptance of uncertainty is essential for the pursuit of the profession: bedside decisions must often be made on the basis of incomplete evidence. Over the years, physicians sometimes even do not realize anymore which the fundamental gaps in our knowledge are. As clinical scientists, however, we have to halt and consider what we do not know yet, and how we can move forward addressing those unknowns. The European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) believes that scanning the field of arrhythmia / cardiac electrophysiology to identify knowledge gaps which are not yet the subject of organized research, should be undertaken on a regular basis. Such a review (White Paper) should concentrate on research which is feasible, realistic, and clinically relevant, and should not deal with futuristic aspirations. It fits with the EHRA mission that these White Papers should be shared on a global basis in order to foster collaborative and needed research which will ultimately lead to better care for our patients. The present EHRA White Paper summarizes knowledge gaps in the management of atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia/sudden death and heart failure.

Implantable cardiac defibrillators for people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention in people with an ischaemic cardiomyopathy improves survival rate. The evidence supporting this intervention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy is not as definitive, with the recently published DANISH trial finding no improvement in survival rate. A systematic review of all eligible studies was needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of using ICDs for primary prevention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of using compared to not using ICD for primary prevention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy receiving optimal medical therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science Core Collection on 10 October 2018. For ongoing or unpublished clinical trials, we searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the ISRCTN registry. To identify economic evaluation studies, we conducted a separate search to 31 March 2015 of the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and from March 2015 to October 2018 on MEDLINE and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials involving adults with chronic non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy due to a left ventricular systolic dysfunction with an ejection fraction of 35% or less (New York Heart Association (NYHA) type I-IV). Participants in the intervention arm should have received ICD in addition to optimal medical therapy, while those in the control arm received optimal medical therapy alone. We included studies with cardiac resynchronisation therapy when it was appropriately balanced in the experimental and control groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, sudden cardiac death, and adverse events associated with the intervention. The secondary outcomes were non-cardiovascular death, health-related quality of life, hospitalisation for heart failure, first ICD-related hospitalisation, and cost. We abstracted the log (hazard ratio) and its variance from trial reports for time-to-event survival data. We extracted the raw data necessary to calculate the risk ratio. We summarised data on quality of life and cost-effectiveness narratively. We assessed the certainty of evidence for all outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six eligible randomised trials with a total of 3128 participants. The use of ICD plus optimal medical therapy versus optimal medical therapy alone decreases the risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92; participants = 3128; studies = 6; high-certainty evidence). An average of 24 patients need to be treated with ICD to prevent one additional death from any cause (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 24). Individuals younger than 65 derive more benefit than individuals older than 65 (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91; participants = 348; studies = 1) (NNTB = 10). When added to medical therapy, ICDs probably decrease cardiovascular mortality compared to not adding them (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.21; participants = 1781; studies = 4; moderate-certainty evidence) (possibility of both plausible benefit and no effect). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was also found to decrease sudden cardiac deaths (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.70; participants = 1677; studies = 3; high-certainty evidence). An average of 25 patients need to be treated with an ICD to prevent one additional sudden cardiac death (NNTB = 25). We found that ICDs probably increase adverse events (possibility of both plausible harm and benefit), but likely have little or no effect on non-cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.68; participants = 1781; studies = 4; moderate-certainty evidence) (possibility of both plausible benefit and no effect). Finally, using ICD therapy probably has little or no effect on quality of life, however shocks from the device cause a deterioration in quality of life. No study reported the outcome of first ICD-related hospitalisations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of ICD in addition to medical therapy in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy decreases all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac deaths and probably decreases mortality from cardiovascular causes compared to medical therapy alone. Their use probably increases the risk for adverse events. However, these devices come at a high cost, and shocks from ICDs cause a deterioration in quality of life.