Cargando…
Continued versus Suspended Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves outcomes in heart failure patients with wide QRS complex. However, CRT management following continuous flow Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) implant vary: some centers continue CRT while others turn off the left ventricular (LV) lead at LVAD impl...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7018750/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32054868 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59117-w |
_version_ | 1783497385447522304 |
---|---|
author | Roukoz, Henri Bhan, Adarsh Ravichandran, Ashwin Ahmed, Mustafa M. Bhat, Geetha Cowger, Jennifer Abdullah, Munazzah Dhawan, Rahul Trivedi, Jaimin R. Slaughter, Mark S. Gopinathannair, Rakesh |
author_facet | Roukoz, Henri Bhan, Adarsh Ravichandran, Ashwin Ahmed, Mustafa M. Bhat, Geetha Cowger, Jennifer Abdullah, Munazzah Dhawan, Rahul Trivedi, Jaimin R. Slaughter, Mark S. Gopinathannair, Rakesh |
author_sort | Roukoz, Henri |
collection | PubMed |
description | Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves outcomes in heart failure patients with wide QRS complex. However, CRT management following continuous flow Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) implant vary: some centers continue CRT while others turn off the left ventricular (LV) lead at LVAD implant. We sought to study the effect of continued CRT versus turning off CRT pacing following continuous flow LVAD implantation. A comprehensive retrospective multicenter cohort of 295 patients with LVAD and pre-existing CRT was studied. CRT was programmed off after LVAD implant in 44 patients. We compared their outcomes to the rest of the cohort using univariate and multivariate models. Mean age was 60 ± 12 years, 83% were males, 52% had ischemic cardiomyopathy and 54% were destination therapy. Mean follow-up was 2.4 ± 2.0 years, and mean LVAD support time was 1.7 ± 1.4 years. Patients with CRT OFF had a higher Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) mean profile (3.9 vs 3.3, p = 0.01), more secondary prevention indication for a defibrillator (64.9% vs 44.5%, p = 0.023), and more pre-LVAD ventricular arrhythmias (VA) (77% vs 60%, p = 0.048). There were no differences between the CRT OFF and CRT ON groups in overall mortality (Log rank p = 0.32, adjusted HR = 1.14 [0.54–2.22], p = 0.71), heart transplantation, cardiac and noncardiac mortality, all cause hospitalizations, hospitalizations for ICD shocks, and number and frequency of ICD shocks or anti-tachycardia pacing therapy. There were no differences in post LVAD atrial arrhythmias (AA) (Adjusted OR = 0.45 [0.18–1.06], p = 0.31) and ventricular arrhythmias (OR = 0.65 [0.41–1.78], p = 0.41). There was no difference in change in LVEF, LV end diastolic and end systolic diameters between the 2 groups. Our study suggests that turning off CRT pacing after LVAD implantation in patients with previous CRT pacing did not affect mortality, heart transplantation, device therapies or arrhythmia burden. A prospective study is needed to confirm these findings. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7018750 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70187502020-02-21 Continued versus Suspended Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation Roukoz, Henri Bhan, Adarsh Ravichandran, Ashwin Ahmed, Mustafa M. Bhat, Geetha Cowger, Jennifer Abdullah, Munazzah Dhawan, Rahul Trivedi, Jaimin R. Slaughter, Mark S. Gopinathannair, Rakesh Sci Rep Article Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves outcomes in heart failure patients with wide QRS complex. However, CRT management following continuous flow Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) implant vary: some centers continue CRT while others turn off the left ventricular (LV) lead at LVAD implant. We sought to study the effect of continued CRT versus turning off CRT pacing following continuous flow LVAD implantation. A comprehensive retrospective multicenter cohort of 295 patients with LVAD and pre-existing CRT was studied. CRT was programmed off after LVAD implant in 44 patients. We compared their outcomes to the rest of the cohort using univariate and multivariate models. Mean age was 60 ± 12 years, 83% were males, 52% had ischemic cardiomyopathy and 54% were destination therapy. Mean follow-up was 2.4 ± 2.0 years, and mean LVAD support time was 1.7 ± 1.4 years. Patients with CRT OFF had a higher Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) mean profile (3.9 vs 3.3, p = 0.01), more secondary prevention indication for a defibrillator (64.9% vs 44.5%, p = 0.023), and more pre-LVAD ventricular arrhythmias (VA) (77% vs 60%, p = 0.048). There were no differences between the CRT OFF and CRT ON groups in overall mortality (Log rank p = 0.32, adjusted HR = 1.14 [0.54–2.22], p = 0.71), heart transplantation, cardiac and noncardiac mortality, all cause hospitalizations, hospitalizations for ICD shocks, and number and frequency of ICD shocks or anti-tachycardia pacing therapy. There were no differences in post LVAD atrial arrhythmias (AA) (Adjusted OR = 0.45 [0.18–1.06], p = 0.31) and ventricular arrhythmias (OR = 0.65 [0.41–1.78], p = 0.41). There was no difference in change in LVEF, LV end diastolic and end systolic diameters between the 2 groups. Our study suggests that turning off CRT pacing after LVAD implantation in patients with previous CRT pacing did not affect mortality, heart transplantation, device therapies or arrhythmia burden. A prospective study is needed to confirm these findings. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-02-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7018750/ /pubmed/32054868 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59117-w Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Roukoz, Henri Bhan, Adarsh Ravichandran, Ashwin Ahmed, Mustafa M. Bhat, Geetha Cowger, Jennifer Abdullah, Munazzah Dhawan, Rahul Trivedi, Jaimin R. Slaughter, Mark S. Gopinathannair, Rakesh Continued versus Suspended Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation |
title | Continued versus Suspended Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation |
title_full | Continued versus Suspended Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation |
title_fullStr | Continued versus Suspended Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation |
title_full_unstemmed | Continued versus Suspended Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation |
title_short | Continued versus Suspended Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation |
title_sort | continued versus suspended cardiac resynchronization therapy after left ventricular assist device implantation |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7018750/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32054868 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59117-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT roukozhenri continuedversussuspendedcardiacresynchronizationtherapyafterleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation AT bhanadarsh continuedversussuspendedcardiacresynchronizationtherapyafterleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation AT ravichandranashwin continuedversussuspendedcardiacresynchronizationtherapyafterleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation AT ahmedmustafam continuedversussuspendedcardiacresynchronizationtherapyafterleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation AT bhatgeetha continuedversussuspendedcardiacresynchronizationtherapyafterleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation AT cowgerjennifer continuedversussuspendedcardiacresynchronizationtherapyafterleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation AT abdullahmunazzah continuedversussuspendedcardiacresynchronizationtherapyafterleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation AT dhawanrahul continuedversussuspendedcardiacresynchronizationtherapyafterleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation AT trivedijaiminr continuedversussuspendedcardiacresynchronizationtherapyafterleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation AT slaughtermarks continuedversussuspendedcardiacresynchronizationtherapyafterleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation AT gopinathannairrakesh continuedversussuspendedcardiacresynchronizationtherapyafterleftventricularassistdeviceimplantation |