Evidence Hub

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator troubleshooting in patients with left ventricular assist devices: a case series and systematic review

Eric Black-Maier, Robert K. Lewis, Adam S. Barnett, S. Pokorney, A. Sun, Jason I. Koontz, J. Daubert, J. Piccini

Heart Rhythm, 2020

588 participants · 20 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the performance of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs).

OBJECTIVE

To describe the clinical course and outcomes of patients with both S-ICD and LVAD devices at our institution and via a systematic review of published studies.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent LVAD implantation from 2009 to 2019 at Duke University Hospital. We also performed a systematic review of studies involving patients with an S-ICD and LVAD using the PUBMED/EMBASE databases.

RESULTS

Among 588 patients undergoing LVAD implant with a pre-existing ICD, 4 had an S-ICD in situ following LVAD implantation. All 4 patients developed EMI in the primary/secondary vectors following LVAD implant, resulting in inappropriate ICD shocks in 2 patients. Sensing in the alternate vector was adequate immediately post-operatively in 1 patient. Post-operative undersensing was present in the alternate vector in 3 patients, but improved at first outpatient follow up in 2 patients, allowing tachy-therapies to be re-enabled. Eight studies involving 27 patients were identified in systematic review. EMI was common and frequently absent in the alternate vector (6 of 7 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Undersensing and electromagnetic interference (EMI) are common after LVAD implantation in patients with a S-ICD in situ, particularly in the primary and secondary sensing vectors.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 588 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free