1. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator noise following left ventricular assist device implantation
- Author
-
Banveet Kaur Khetarpal, Awad Javaid, Justin Z. Lee, Fred Kusumoto, Siva K. Mulpuru, Dan Sorajja, Yong‐Mei Cha, and Komandoor Srivathsan
- Subjects
electromagnetic interference ,left ventricular assist device ,oversensing ,subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator ,Diseases of the circulatory (Cardiovascular) system ,RC666-701 - Abstract
Abstract 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.
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF