Prognostic Impact of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Patients with Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices

Pausch, Jonas; Bhadra, O. D.; Mersmann, Jan; Barten, M.; Tönnis, Tobias; Pecha, Simon; Reichenspurner, H.; Bernhardt, A.

doi:10.1055/s-0042-1742812

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a recent study of 162 CF‐LVAD recipients, of which 94 had an existing ICD, 18 patients received appropriate shocks, and 5 patients received inappropriate shocks over a 2‐year follow‐up. Overall survival was similar between those with and without ICDs 34 . An Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) registry analysis showed that VA was not associated with mortality 4 .…”

Section: Clinical Significance Of Va In Cf‐lvad Recipientsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Overall survival was similar between those with and without ICDs. 34 An Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) registry analysis showed that VA was not associated with mortality. 4 A recently published meta-analysis evaluated the impact of VA and mortality and RV failure in patients with CF-LVADs.…”

Section: Clinical Significance Of Va In Cf-lvad Recipientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Soni,

Gopinathannair

2023

Cardiovasc electrophysiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Clinical Significance Of Va In Cf‐lvad Recipientsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Clinical Significance Of Va In Cf-lvad Recipientsmentioning

confidence: 99%