Key result
HeartMate 3 shows similar CIED electromagnetic interference rates to HeartMate II during LVAD implantation.
Why the study?
The prevalence and characteristics of electromagnetic interference between ICDs/PMs and different types of LVADs remain unclear.
Does LVAD implantation cause electromagnetic interference with ICDs/pacemakers?
Observational (n=85)
No
Does LVAD implantation cause electromagnetic interference with ICDs/pacemakers?
Electromagnetic interference preventing device interrogation occurs in approximately 13% of patients with LVADs and ICDs/pacemakers, with specific LVAD-ICD brand interactions observed.
EMI affects 13% of LVAD-ICD/PM patients without shocks or inhibition; leaves open optimal device selection pending prospective registries.
AIMS: To investigate the prevalence of electromagnetic interference (EMI) between left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs)/pacemakers (PMs). METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective single-centre study was conducted, including all patients undergoing HeartMate II (HMII) and HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD implantation (n = 106). Electromagnetic interference was determined by the inability to interrogate the ICD/PM. Overall, 85 (mean age 59 ± 8, 79% male) patients had an ICD/PM at the time of LVAD implantation; 46 patients with HMII and 40 patients with HM3. Among the 85 LVAD patients with an ICD's/PM's, 11 patients (13%) experienced EMI; 6 patients (15%) with an HMII and 5 patients (11%) with an HM3 (P = 0.59). Electromagnetic interference from the HMII LVADs was only present in patients with a St Jude/Abbott device; 6 of the 23 St Jude/Abbott devices. However, in the HM3 patients, EMI was mainly present in patients with Biotronik devices: 4 of the 18 with only one (1/25) patient with a Medtronic device. While initial interrogation of these devices was not successful, none of the 11 cases experienced pacing inhibition or inappropriate shocks. CONCLUSION: In summary, the prevalence of EMI between ICDs in the older and newer type of LVAD's remains rather high. While HMII patients experienced EMI with a St Jude/Abbott device (which was already known), HM3 LVAD patients experience EMI mainly with Biotronik devices. Prospective follow-up, preferably in large registries, is warranted to investigate the overall prevalence and impact of EMI in LVAD patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yalcin et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Heart failure requiring LVAD (n=85). HeartMate II LVAD vs. HeartMate 3 LVAD was evaluated on Electromagnetic interference (inability to interrogate the ICD/PM) (p=0.59). Electromagnetic interference occurred in 13% of patients with an ICD/PM undergoing LVAD implantation, with similar rates between HeartMate II (15%) and HeartMate 3 (11%) devices (P=0.59).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: