Key result
Left ventricular assist devices caused inappropriate sensing due to electromagnetic interference in all 10 patients with pre-existing subcutaneous ICDs, often requiring device inactivation.
Why the study?
Although interactions between LVADs and transvenous ICDs are widely reported, less is known regarding the impact of electromagnetic interference from LVADs on subcutaneous ICD function.
Does the presence of an LVAD cause electromagnetic interference and inappropriate sensing in patients with pre-existing subcutaneous ICDs?
Does the presence of an LVAD cause electromagnetic interference and inappropriate sensing in patients with pre-existing subcutaneous ICDs?
LVADs (specifically HeartWare and HeartMate III) frequently cause electromagnetic interference in patients with pre-existing S-ICDs, often requiring device inactivation or replacement.
EMI reported in limited LVAD-S-ICD cases; leaves open need for prospective data before changing device selection.
INTRODUCTION: Interactions of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems (ICDs) have been widely reported. However, less is known regarding the impact of electromagnetic interference (EMI) from LVADs on subcutaneous ICD function. METHODS AND RESULTS: A comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane central registry, and Google Scholar using the search terms "subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and left ventricular assist devices," "electromagnetic interference, LVAD, and subcutaneous ICD," "EMI and S-ICD," and "inappropriate shocks, LVAD, and ICD." Demographic and programming data were extracted from the reports and authors as needed. A total of seven cases of EMI in LVAD patients with subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) devices were found. In addition three previously unreported cases from our center were included. All cases involved either a heartware ventricular assist device or HeartMate III LVAD with a pre-existing S-ICD. In all patients, both the primary and secondary vectors had inappropriate sensing due to EMI. Three patients were reprogramed to the alternate vector with appropriate sensing. The S-ICD was either inactivated or replaced with a transvenous device in six patients. A single patient was left sensing in the alternate vector. There were no reports of inability to interrogate S-ICD systems in patients with LVADs. CONCLUSION: The risk of inappropriate shocks from LVADs should be considered in pre-existing patients with S-ICD, particularly when the heartware ventricular assist device or HeartMate III LVAD device is present. Reprogramming of the sensing vector can occasionally avoid this issue but often the S-ICD needs to be inactivated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ishida et al. (2020) conducted a review in Patients with left ventricular assist devices and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (n=10). Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) was evaluated on Inappropriate sensing due to electromagnetic interference. Left ventricular assist devices caused inappropriate sensing due to electromagnetic interference in all 10 patients with pre-existing subcutaneous ICDs, often requiring device inactivation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: