Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in a patient with a left ventricular assist device already in place

Left ventricular assist device in the presence of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Data from a multicenter experience

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly used strategy for the management of patients with advanced heart failure (HF). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) might be a viable alternative to conventional ICDs with a lower risk of short- and long-term of device-related complications and infections.The aim of this multicenter study was to evaluate the outcomes and management of S-ICD recipients who underwent LVAD implantation.

METHODS

The study population included patients with a preexisting S-ICD who underwent LVAD implantation for advanced HF despite optimal medical therapy.

RESULTS

The study population included 30 patients (25 male; median age 45 [38-52] years).The HeartMate III was the most common LVAD type. Median follow-up in the setting of concomitant use of S-ICDs and LVADs was 7 months (1-20).There were no reports of inability to interrogate S-ICD systems in this population. Electromagnetic interference (EMI) occurred in 21 (70%) patients. The primary sensing vector was the one most significantly involved in determining EMI. Twenty-seven patients (90%) remained eligible for S-ICD implantation with at least one optimal sensing vector. The remaining 3 patients (10%) were ineligible for S-ICD after attempts of reprogramming of sensing vectors. Six patients (20%) experienced inappropriate shocks (IS) due to EMI. Six patients (20%) experienced appropriate shocks. No S-ICD extraction because of need for antitachycardia pacing, ineffective therapy or infection was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant use of LVAD and S-ICD is feasible in most patients. However, the potential risk of EMI oversensing, IS and undersensing in the post-operative period following LVAD implantation should be considered. Careful screening for EMI should be performed in all sensing vectors after LVAD implantation.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator noise following left ventricular assist device implantation

Background

The incidence and impact of noise in a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is not well established.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study of patients implanted with LVAD and with a pre-existing S-ICD between January 2005 and December 2020 at the three Mayo Clinic centers (Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida).

Results

Of the 908 LVAD patients, a pre-existing S-ICD was present in 9 patients (mean age 49.1 ± 13.7 years, 66.7% males), 100% with Boston Scientific third-generation EMBLEM MRI S-ICD, 11% with HeartMate II (HM II), 44% with HeartMate 3 (HM 3), and 44% with HeartWare (HW) LVAD. The incidence of noise from LVAD-related electromagnetic interference (EMI) was 33% and was only seen with HM 3 LVAD. Multiple measures attempted to resolve noise, including using alternative S-ICD sensing vector, adjusting S-ICD time zone, and increasing LVAD pump speed, were unsuccessful, necessitating S-ICD device therapies to be turned off permanently.

Conclusions

The incidence of LVAD-related S-ICD noise is high in patients with concomitant LVAD and S-ICD with significant impact on device function. As conservative management failed to resolve the EMI, the S-ICDs had to be programmed off to avoid inappropriate shocks. This study highlights the importance of awareness of LVAD-SICD device interference and the need to improve S-ICD detection algorithms to eliminate noise.

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).

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: The Times They Are a-Changin'

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is a life-saving therapy in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) at high risk of sudden cardiac death. The heterogeneity of clinical scenarios in HCM and the availability of ICDs with distinct characteristics emphasizes the need for selecting the right device for the right patient. There is growing awareness that unnecessarily complex devices can lead to short- and long-term complications without adding significant clinical benefits. Young patients have the greatest potential years of life gained from the ICD but are also most exposed to device-related complications. This increases the complexity of decision-making of ICD prescription in these often otherwise well patients in whom device selection should be tailored to preserve survival benefit without introducing morbidity. In the light of the multiple clinical phenotypes characterizing HCM, the present article offers evidence-based perspectives helpful in predicting the individual impact of the ICD and choosing the most appropriate device.

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.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Systems

Recent progress and evolution in device engineering, surgical implantation practices, and periprocedural management have advanced the promise of durable support with left ventricular assist systems (LVAS) in patients with stage D heart failure. With greater uptake of LVAS globally, a growing population of LVAS recipients have pre-existing cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Strategies for optimal clinical management of CIEDs in patients with durable LVAS are evolving, and clinicians will increasingly face complex decisions regarding implantation, programming, deactivation, and removal of CIEDs. Traditional decision-making pathways for CIEDs may not apply to LVAS-supported patients, as few patients die of arrhythmic causes and many arrhythmias may be well tolerated. Given limited data, treatment decisions must be individualized and made collaboratively among electrophysiologists, advanced heart failure specialists, and patients and their caregivers. Large, prospective, well-conducted studies are needed to better understand the contemporary utility of CIEDs in patients with newer-generation LVAS.

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.

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.

Spotlight on S-ICD™ therapy: 10 years of clinical experience and innovation

Subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD™) therapy has been established in initial clinical trials and current international guideline recommendations for patients without demand for pacing, cardiac resynchronization, or antitachycardia pacing. The promising experience in ‘ideal’ S-ICD™ candidates increasingly encourages physicians to provide the benefits of S-ICD™ therapy to patients in clinical constellations beyond ‘classical’ indications of S-ICD™ therapy, which has led to a broadening of S-ICD™ indications in many centres. However, the decision for S-ICD™ implantation is still not covered by controlled randomized trials but rather relies on patient series or observational studies. Thus, this review intends to give a contemporary update on available empirical evidence data and technical advancements of S-ICD™ technology and sheds a spotlight on S-ICD™ therapy in recently discovered fields of indication beyond ideal preconditions. We discuss the eligibility for S-ICD™ therapy in Brugada syndrome as an example for an adverse and dynamic electrocardiographic pattern that challenges the S-ICD™ sensing and detection algorithms. Besides, the S-ICD™ performance and defibrillation efficacy in conditions of adverse structural remodelling as exemplified for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is discussed. In addition, we review recent data on potential device interactions between S-ICD™ systems and other implantable cardio-active systems (e.g. pacemakers) including specific recommendations, how these could be prevented. Finally, we evaluate limitations of S-ICD™ therapy in adverse patient constitutions, like distinct obesity, and present contemporary strategies to assure proper S-ICD™ performance in these patients. Overall, the S-ICD™ performance is promising even for many patients, who may not be ‘classical’ candidates for this technology.