Cargando…
Eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with left ventricular assist device
PURPOSE: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) could be a promising alternative to the conventional transvenous ICD in patients with LVAD due to its reduced risk of infection. However, surface ECG is altered following LVAD implantation and, since S-ICD detection is based on...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7925469/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32613315 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10840-020-00810-1 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) could be a promising alternative to the conventional transvenous ICD in patients with LVAD due to its reduced risk of infection. However, surface ECG is altered following LVAD implantation and, since S-ICD detection is based on surface ECG, S-ICD could be potentially affected. The aim of the present study was to analyze S-ICD eligibility in patients with LVAD. METHODS: Seventy-five patients implanted with an LVAD were included in this prospective single-center study. The ECG-based screening test and the automated screening test were performed in all patients. RESULTS: Fifty-five (73.3%) patients had either a positive ECG-based or automated screening test. Out of these, 28 (37.3%) patients were found eligible for S-ICD implantation with both screening tests performed. ECG-based screening test was positive in 50 (66.6%) patients; automated screening test was positive in 33 (44.0%) patients. Three ECG-based screening tests could not be evaluated due to artifacts. With the automated screening test, in 9 (12.0%) patients, the test yielded no result. CONCLUSIONS: Patients implanted with an LVAD showed lower S-ICD eligibility rates compared with patients without LVAD. With an S-ICD eligibility rate of maximal 73.3%, S-ICD therapy may be a feasible option in these patients. Nevertheless, S-ICD implantation should be carefully weighed against potential device-device interference. Prospective studies regarding S-ICD eligibility before and after LVAD implantation are required to further elucidate the role of S-ICD therapy in this population. |
---|