Key result
Ventricular arrhythmias after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation did not significantly impact mortality compared to patients without arrhythmias (27.8% vs 27.5%; p=0.18).
Why the study?
Ventricular arrhythmias occur in 25%-50% of continuous-flow left ventricular assist device recipients, but their effect on mortality remains debated.
Does the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias impact mortality in patients with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device?
Cohort (n=69)
Does the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias impact mortality in patients with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device?
Absolute Event Rate: 27.8% vs 27.5%
p-value: p=0.18
Ventricular arrhythmias are common after CF-LVAD implantation but do not appear to significantly impact mortality.
Early VAs post-CF-LVAD may signal higher risk; leaves open independent mortality impact pending prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) are observed in 25%-50% of continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) recipients, but their role on mortality is debated. METHODS: Sixty-nine consecutive patients with a CF-LVAD were retrospectively analyzed. Study endpoints were death and occurrence of first episode of VAs post CF-LVAD implantation. Early VAs were defined as VAs in the first month after CF-LVAD implantation. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 29.0 months, 19 patients (27.5%) died and 18 patients (26.1%) experienced VAs. Three patients experienced early VAs, and one of them died. Patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) showed a trend toward more VAs (p = 0.076), compared to patients without CRT-D; no significant difference in mortality was found between patients with and without CRT-D (p = 0.63). Patients with biventricular (BiV) pacing ≥98% experienced more frequently VAs (p = 0.046), with no difference in mortality (p = 0.56), compared to patients experiencing BiV pacing <98%. There was no difference in mortality among patients with or without VAs after CF-LVAD [5 patients (27.8%) vs. 14 patients (27.5%), p = 0.18)], and patients with or without previous history of VAs (p = 0.95). Also, there was no difference in mortality among patients with a different timing of implant of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), before and after CF-LVAD (p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: VAs in CF-LVAD are a common clinical problem, but they do not impact mortality. Timing of ICD implantation does not have a significant impact on patients' survival. Patients with BiV pacing ≥98% experienced more frequently VAs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gulletta et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) recipients (n=69). Ventricular arrhythmias vs. No ventricular arrhythmias was evaluated on Mortality (p=0.18). Ventricular arrhythmias after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation did not significantly impact mortality compared to patients without arrhythmias (27.8% vs 27.5%; p=0.18).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: