Cargando…

Emerging electromagnetic interferences between implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and left ventricular assist devices

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 Hea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yalcin, Yunus C, Kooij, Claudette, Theuns, Dominic A M J, Constantinescu, Alina A, Brugts, Jasper J, Manintveld, Olivier C, Yap, Sing-Chien, Szili-Torok, Tamas, Bogers, Ad J J C, Caliskan, Kadir
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7132535/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32003803
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euaa006
Descripción
Sumario: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.