Key result
Pre-LVAD ICDs provide no survival benefit and are linked to frequent device-related adverse events.
Why the study?
The prognostic impact of ICD therapy in continuous flow left ventricular assist device recipients remains controversial.
Does the presence of an ICD improve overall survival in heart failure patients with continuous flow LVADs?
Cohort (n=162)
No
Does the presence of an ICD improve overall survival in heart failure patients with continuous flow LVADs?
Hazard Ratio: 0.884 (95% CI 0.321–2.435)
p-value: p=0.811
ICD therapy in LVAD recipients was not associated with a survival benefit but was associated with ICD-related complications, supporting conservative ICD programming.
ICD presence was not linked to survival benefit in LVAD recipients; leaves open optimal programming and patient selection for prospective evaluation.
Objectives Implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) reduces the risk of all-cause mortality in symptomatic heart failure (HF) patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Nevertheless, the prognostic impact of ICD therapy in continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients remains controversial. Methods 162 consecutive HF patients, who underwent LVAD implantation at our institution between 2010 and 2019, were categorized according to the presence ( n = 94, ICD-group ) or absence ( n = 68, Control-group) of ICDs. Apart from clinical baseline and follow-up parameters, adverse events (AEs) related to ICD therapy and overall survival rates were retrospectively analyzed. Results Out of 162 consecutive LVAD recipients 79 patients (48.8%) were preoperatively categorized as Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile ≤2. The prevalence of severe HF symptoms and preoperative use of short-term circulatory support devices (54.4% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.001) was higher within the Control-group, although baseline severity of LV and RV dysfunction was similar. Apart from an increased prevalence of perioperative right heart failure (RHF) within the Control-group (45.6% vs. 17.0%; p < 0.001), procedural characteristics and perioperative outcome were similar. Overall-survival during a median follow-up of 14 (3.0–36.5) months was similar within both groups ( p = 0.46). During the first 2 years after LVAD implantation 53 ICD-related AEs occurred within the ICD-group. Thereof, lead-dysfunction occurred in 19 patients and unplanned ICD-reintervention in 11 patients. Furthermore, in 18 patients appropriate shocks without loss of consciousness occurred, whereas inappropriate shocks occurred in 5 patients. Conclusion ICD therapy in LVAD recipients was not associated with a survival benefit or reduced morbidity after LVAD implantation. Conservative ICD-programming seems to be justified to avoid ICD-related complications and „awake shocks” after LVAD implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pausch et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in End-stage heart failure requiring continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) (n=162). Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) vs. No ICD was evaluated on Overall survival (HR 0.884, 95% CI 0.321-2.435, p=0.811). The presence of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator prior to continuous flow LVAD implantation was not associated with a survival benefit (HR 0.884) but was linked to frequent device-related adverse events.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: