Evidence Hub

Sympathectomy in refractory ventricular arrhythmias in patients with left ventricular assist device: a grand round case report

Melanie Fernández-Caso, A. Carta-Bergaz, J. Castrodeza, I. Sousa-Casasnovas, C. Ortiz-Bautista, Á. Pedraz-Prieto, J. M. Barrio-Gutiérrez, J. Bermejo

European Heart Journal: Case Reports, 2025

2 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background Ventricular tachycardias (VTs) are a life-threatening complication of patients with end-stage left ventricular dysfunction, and are a frequent cause for considering advanced therapies. Their management in patients supported by a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) presents unique challenges, requiring a multidisciplinary approach to tailored strategies. Case summary We present the case of a 70-year-old male with a history of VTs who underwent HeartMate 3 (Abbott, USA) implantation for advanced heart failure secondary to ischaemic cardiomyopathy and refractory VTs. Following LVAD implantation, he developed an electrical storm refractory to a combination of antiarrhythmic drugs and both radiofrequency and pulse-field catheter ablations. Due to persistent VT, neuromodulation of the sympathetic nervous system was considered as a last-resort strategy. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of the stellate ganglion was unsuccessful; however, left surgical sympathectomy effectively controlled the arrhythmias. The patient has remained free of arrhythmic events at 1-year follow-up. Discussion Management of VTs in LVAD carriers is typically stepwise, beginning with correction of reversible triggers and the use of antiarrhythmic drugs. However, monotherapy is often insufficient, and achieving arrhythmic control often depends on a multimodal approach. In cases refractory to conventional measures, escalation to catheter ablation, neuromodulation techniques, and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

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