Key result
Endocardial VT ablation in LVAD patients was associated with increased risk of device thrombosis, stroke, or embolic events compared to no ablation (HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.09-4.61; p=0.03).
Why the study?
Ventricular arrhythmias are common following LVAD implantation, but the effects of VT ablation on thrombosis and embolic events were unknown.
Does endocardial VT ablation increase the risk of LVAD thrombosis, stroke, or other embolic events in patients with LVADs and VT?
Cohort (n=116)
Yes
Does endocardial VT ablation increase the risk of LVAD thrombosis, stroke, or other embolic events in patients with LVADs and VT?
Hazard Ratio: 2.24 (95% CI 1.09–4.61)
Absolute Event Rate: 58% vs 30%
p-value: p=0.03
Endocardial VT ablation in patients with LVADs is associated with a more than two-fold increased risk of device thrombosis and cardioembolic events.
VT ablation in LVAD patients was associated with higher thrombosis and embolic events; leaves open causality versus selection bias in observational data.
Ventricular arrhythmias are common following left ventricular assist device implantation (LVAD), and the effects of ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation on thrombosis and embolic events are unknown. We aimed to assess LVAD thrombosis, stroke, and embolic event rates after VT ablation. Left ventricular assist device implantation patients from two academic centers who underwent endocardial VT ablation between 2009 and 2016 were compared to a control group with VT who were not ablated and followed for one year. The primary composite outcome was confirmed or suspected LVAD thrombosis, stroke, or other embolic event. Survival analysis was conducted with Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox regression. Forty-three LVAD patients underwent VT ablation, and 73 LVAD patients had VT but were not ablated. Patients who were ablated were more likely have VT prior to LVAD (p = 0.04), monomorphic VT (p < 0.01), and to be on antiarrhythmics (p < 0.01). Fifty-eight percent of the patients in the ablation group experienced the primary composite outcome (11% had confirmed device thrombosis [DT], 41% suspected DT, 39% had a stroke or embolic event) compared to 30% in the control group (12% with confirmed DT, 11% with suspected DT, 14% with stroke or embolic event) (p = 0.002). In multivariable regression, ablation was an independent predictor of the primary composite outcome (hazard ratios, 2.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-4.61; p = 0.03). Patients with LVADs referred for endocardial VT ablation had elevated rates of DT and embolic events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Garan et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Ventricular tachycardia in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) (n=116). Endocardial VT ablation vs. No VT ablation was evaluated on Confirmed or suspected LVAD thrombosis, stroke, or other embolic event (HR 2.24, 95% CI 1.09-4.61, p=0.03). Endocardial VT ablation in LVAD patients was associated with increased risk of device thrombosis, stroke, or embolic events compared to no ablation (HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.09-4.61; p=0.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: