Search

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.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).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.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.

Introduction Electromagnetic interference (EMI) from left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) can cause implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) oversensing. We sought to assess the frequency of inappropriate shocks/oversensing due to LVAD-related EMI and prospectively compare integrated (IB) versus dedicated bipolar (DB) sensing in patients with LVADs. Methods Single-center study in LVAD patients with Medtronic or Abbott ICDs between September 2017 and March 2020. We excluded patients that were pacemaker dependent. Measurements were obtained of IB and DB sensing and noise to calculate a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Device checks were reviewed to assess appropriate and inappropriate sensing events. Results Forty patients (age 52 ± 14 years, 75% men, 38% ischemic cardiomyopathy) were included with the median time between LVAD implantation and enrollment of 6.7 months [2.3, 11.4 months]. LVAD subtypes included: HeartWare (n=22, 55%), Heartmate II (n=10, 25%), and Heartmate III (n=8, 20%). Over a follow-up duration of 21.6 ± 12.9 months after LVAD implantation, 5% of patients (n=2) had oversensing of EMI from the LVAD (both with HeartWare LVADs and Abbott ICDs) at 4 days and 10.8 months after LVAD implantation. Both patients underwent adjustment of ventricular sensing with resolution of oversensing and no further events over 5 and 15 months of further follow-up. The SNR was similar between IB and DB sensing (50 [29-67] and 57 [41-69], p=0.89). Conclusion ICD oversensing of EMI from LVADs is infrequent and can be managed with reprogramming the sensitivity. There was no significant difference in the R-wave SNR with IB versus DB ICD leads. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND The safety of perioperative anticoagulation (AC) and antiplatelet (AP) therapy with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation is unknown. The purpose of this study was to identify the risk factors associated with hematoma complicating S-ICD implantation. METHODS Records were retrospectively reviewed from 200 consecutive patients undergoing S-ICD implantation at two academic medical centers. A hematoma was defined as a device site blood accumulation requiring surgical evacuation, extended hospital stay, or transfusion. RESULTS Among 200 patients undergoing S-ICD implantation (age 49 ± 17 years, 67% men), 10 patients (5%) had a hematoma, which required evacuation in six patients (3%). Warfarin was bridged or uninterrupted in 12 and 13 patients, respectively (6% and 6.5%). Four of 12 patients with warfarin and bridging AC (33%) and two of 13 patients with uninterrupted warfarin (15%) developed a hematoma. Neither of the two patients with uninterrupted DOAC had a hematoma. No patients on interrupted AC without bridging (n = 26, 13 with warfarin, 13 with DOAC) developed a hematoma. A hematoma was also more likely with the use of clopidogrel (n = 4/10 vs 10/190, 40% vs 5.3%, P

Background There have been an increasing number of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with Watchman® left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) device, requiring catheter ablation (CA) for maintenance of normal sinus rhythm. In this study, we describe our experience with the feasibility and safety of CA in patients with a preexisting Watchman LAAO device. Methods This was a retrospective multicenter AF registry of 60 patients with Watchman® LAAO device who underwent CA for AF. Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics of the included subjects were retrieved from review of medical records and were analyzed. Results The mean age was 72.7±4.9 years and the mean CHADS2 score was 2.3±0.6. All patients had successful pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). The left atrial appendage (LAA) was electrically active in 34 (56%) while reentrant tachycardia and AF triggers were seen in 17 (28%) patients. Electrical isolation was attempted in these 17 patients with only 10 achieving complete LAA isolation. Repeat imaging showed new peri-device leaks in 30% (12/40) patients, while new significant peri-device leaks (≥5 mm) were noted in 10% (10/40) of patients after RFA, respectively, requiring continuation of oral anticoagulation. There were a higher proportion of patients with severe peri-device leaks (≥5 mm) after LAA isolation. However, >50% of those leaks sealed off on follow-up TEE. Conclusion AF ablation is a feasible and safe in patients with preexisting Watchman LAAO device. Electrical isolation of the LAA could be difficult and when attempted can result in increased risk of short-term peri device leak and recurrence of AT/AF in almost all patients. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Prior studies have highlighted disparities in cardiac lifesaving procedure utilization, particularly among women and in minorities. Although there has been a significant increase in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) insertion, socioeconomic disparities still exist in the trend of ICD utilization. With the use of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2003 through 2011, we identified subjects with ICD insertion (procedure code 37.94) and cardiac resynchronization defibrillator (procedure code 00.50, 00.51) as codified by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification. Overall, 1 020 076 ICDs were implanted in the United States from 2003 to 2011. We observed an initial increase in ICD utilization by 51%, from 95 062 in 2003 to 143 262 in 2006, followed by a more recent decline. The majority of ICDs were implanted in men age ≥65 years. Implantation of ICDs was 2.5× more common in men than in women (402 per million vs 163 per million). Approximately 95% of the ICDs were implanted in insured patients, and 5% were used in the uninsured population. There has been a significant increase in ICD implantation in blacks, from 162 per million in 2003 to 291 per million in 2011. We found a significant difference in the volume of ICD implants between the insured and the uninsured patient populations. Racial disparities have narrowed significantly in comparison with those noted in earlier studies and are now more reflective of the population demographics at large. On the other hand, significant gender disparities continue to exist.