Cargando…

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator noise following left ventricular assist device implantation

BACKGROUND: The incidence and impact of noise in a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S‐ICD) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is not well established. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients implanted with LVAD and with a pre‐existing S‐ICD b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khetarpal, Banveet Kaur, Javaid, Awad, Lee, Justin Z., Kusumoto, Fred, Mulpuru, Siva K., Sorajja, Dan, Cha, Yong‐Mei, Srivathsan, Komandoor
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10068942/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37021015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joa3.12826
_version_ 1785018760470462464
author Khetarpal, Banveet Kaur
Javaid, Awad
Lee, Justin Z.
Kusumoto, Fred
Mulpuru, Siva K.
Sorajja, Dan
Cha, Yong‐Mei
Srivathsan, Komandoor
author_facet Khetarpal, Banveet Kaur
Javaid, Awad
Lee, Justin Z.
Kusumoto, Fred
Mulpuru, Siva K.
Sorajja, Dan
Cha, Yong‐Mei
Srivathsan, Komandoor
author_sort Khetarpal, Banveet Kaur
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The incidence and impact of noise in a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S‐ICD) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is not well established. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients implanted with LVAD and with a pre‐existing S‐ICD between January 2005 and December 2020 at the three Mayo Clinic centers (Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida). RESULTS: Of the 908 LVAD patients, a pre‐existing S‐ICD was present in 9 patients (mean age 49.1 ± 13.7 years, 66.7% males), 100% with Boston Scientific third‐generation EMBLEM MRI S‐ICD, 11% with HeartMate II (HM II), 44% with HeartMate 3 (HM 3), and 44% with HeartWare (HW) LVAD. The incidence of noise from LVAD‐related electromagnetic interference (EMI) was 33% and was only seen with HM 3 LVAD. Multiple measures attempted to resolve noise, including using alternative S‐ICD sensing vector, adjusting S‐ICD time zone, and increasing LVAD pump speed, were unsuccessful, necessitating S‐ICD device therapies to be turned off permanently. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of LVAD‐related S‐ICD noise is high in patients with concomitant LVAD and S‐ICD with significant impact on device function. As conservative management failed to resolve the EMI, the S‐ICDs had to be programmed off to avoid inappropriate shocks. This study highlights the importance of awareness of LVAD‐SICD device interference and the need to improve S‐ICD detection algorithms to eliminate noise.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10068942
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100689422023-04-04 Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator noise following left ventricular assist device implantation Khetarpal, Banveet Kaur Javaid, Awad Lee, Justin Z. Kusumoto, Fred Mulpuru, Siva K. Sorajja, Dan Cha, Yong‐Mei Srivathsan, Komandoor J Arrhythm Original Articles BACKGROUND: The incidence and impact of noise in a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S‐ICD) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is not well established. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients implanted with LVAD and with a pre‐existing S‐ICD between January 2005 and December 2020 at the three Mayo Clinic centers (Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida). RESULTS: Of the 908 LVAD patients, a pre‐existing S‐ICD was present in 9 patients (mean age 49.1 ± 13.7 years, 66.7% males), 100% with Boston Scientific third‐generation EMBLEM MRI S‐ICD, 11% with HeartMate II (HM II), 44% with HeartMate 3 (HM 3), and 44% with HeartWare (HW) LVAD. The incidence of noise from LVAD‐related electromagnetic interference (EMI) was 33% and was only seen with HM 3 LVAD. Multiple measures attempted to resolve noise, including using alternative S‐ICD sensing vector, adjusting S‐ICD time zone, and increasing LVAD pump speed, were unsuccessful, necessitating S‐ICD device therapies to be turned off permanently. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of LVAD‐related S‐ICD noise is high in patients with concomitant LVAD and S‐ICD with significant impact on device function. As conservative management failed to resolve the EMI, the S‐ICDs had to be programmed off to avoid inappropriate shocks. This study highlights the importance of awareness of LVAD‐SICD device interference and the need to improve S‐ICD detection algorithms to eliminate noise. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-02-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10068942/ /pubmed/37021015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joa3.12826 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Arrhythmia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japanese Heart Rhythm Society. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Khetarpal, Banveet Kaur
Javaid, Awad
Lee, Justin Z.
Kusumoto, Fred
Mulpuru, Siva K.
Sorajja, Dan
Cha, Yong‐Mei
Srivathsan, Komandoor
Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator noise following left ventricular assist device implantation
title Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator noise following left ventricular assist device implantation
title_full Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator noise following left ventricular assist device implantation
title_fullStr Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator noise following left ventricular assist device implantation
title_full_unstemmed Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator noise following left ventricular assist device implantation
title_short Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator noise following left ventricular assist device implantation
title_sort subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator noise following left ventricular assist device implantation
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10068942/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37021015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joa3.12826
work_keys_str_mv AT khetarpalbanveetkaur subcutaneousimplantablecardioverterdefibrillatornoisefollowingleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation
AT javaidawad subcutaneousimplantablecardioverterdefibrillatornoisefollowingleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation
AT leejustinz subcutaneousimplantablecardioverterdefibrillatornoisefollowingleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation
AT kusumotofred subcutaneousimplantablecardioverterdefibrillatornoisefollowingleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation
AT mulpurusivak subcutaneousimplantablecardioverterdefibrillatornoisefollowingleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation
AT sorajjadan subcutaneousimplantablecardioverterdefibrillatornoisefollowingleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation
AT chayongmei subcutaneousimplantablecardioverterdefibrillatornoisefollowingleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation
AT srivathsankomandoor subcutaneousimplantablecardioverterdefibrillatornoisefollowingleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation