Key result
In a patient with a left ventricular assist device, recurrent implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks were ineffective in terminating ventricular fibrillation.
Case Report (n=1)
No
This case highlights the potential for ineffective ICD shocks for ventricular fibrillation in patients with continuous flow LVADs.
Case report of ICD-LVAD use in severe LV dysfunction; leaves open generalizability and need for prospective data.
Ventricular arrhythmias are life-threatening and can serve as a precursor to sudden death. They are a common presentation in patients with severely reduced left ventricular (LV) function. The use of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is seen as an acceptable therapy against malignant ventricular arrhythmias. In patients with LV heart failure, a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) can provide pulsatile flow to mimic the cardiac systolic and diastolic function. We report a case of a 38-year-old male with a LVAD who presented to the emergency department due to syncope and frequent ICD discharges. There were documented episodes of ventricular fibrillation and a failed defibrillator threshold test.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Enes Elvin Gül (2018) conducted a case report in Ventricular Fibrillation in a patient with a Left Ventricular Assist Device (n=1). Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) shocks was evaluated on Termination of ventricular fibrillation. In a patient with a left ventricular assist device, recurrent implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks were ineffective in terminating ventricular fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: