Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Street 1, Hannover 30625, Germany.
Eur J Heart Fail. 2010 Jun;12(6):593-9. doi: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfq048. Epub 2010 Apr 20.
Ventricular arrhythmias (VA) occur frequently after permanent left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation in end stage heart failure. Left ventricular assist device patients require rhythm control in contrast to patients with biventricular support. However, the rationale for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) utilization in LVAD patients remains unclear. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of primary prevention ICD therapy and the rate of appropriate ICD interventions in LVAD patients.
We prospectively collected data from patients receiving LVADs. Patients without previous ICD received an ICD after LVAD implantation for primary prevention. Sixty-one patients with LVAD and ICD were followed prospectively for 365 +/- 321 days. Nine patients died from thromboembolism or haemorrhage. Overall, the rate of appropriate ICD interventions was 34%, mostly for treatment of monomorphic VT in 52%, polymorphic VT in 13%, and VF in 35%. Seventy-one percent of VA were terminated by overdrive pacing, 29% by shock. Patients with a history of VA before LVAD implantation had a significantly higher 1-year rate for ICD therapy compared with LVAD patients with a primary prevention ICD indication LVAD patients (50 vs. 24%). Similarly, patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy had a significantly higher risk for ICD therapy than patients with ischaemic heart disease (50 vs. 22%).
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy is safe and effective in LVAD patients. Ventricular arrhythmias leading to ICD intervention occur frequently in 34% of LVAD patients after 1 year, with large variations depending on the underlying cardiac disease and previous arrhythmia history. Primary prevention ICD indication after LVAD implantation yields high rates of ICD intervention. A history of previous VA strongly predicts future use of ICD treatment after LVAD implantation.
在终末期心力衰竭患者中,永久性左心室辅助装置(LVAD)植入后常发生室性心律失常(VA)。与接受双心室支持的患者相比,LVAD 患者需要节律控制。然而,LVAD 患者植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)的应用依据仍不明确。本研究旨在调查 LVAD 患者中,原发性预防 ICD 治疗的安全性和有效性,以及 ICD 干预的适当率。
我们前瞻性地收集了接受 LVAD 治疗的患者的数据。无先前 ICD 病史的患者在 LVAD 植入后接受 ICD 治疗,以进行原发性预防。61 例 LVAD 和 ICD 患者前瞻性随访 365 ± 321 天。9 例患者死于血栓栓塞或出血。总的来说,ICD 干预的适当率为 34%,主要是治疗 52%的单形性 VT、13%的多形性 VT 和 35%的 VF。71%的 VA 通过超速起搏终止,29%通过电击终止。与 LVAD 患者具有原发性预防 ICD 适应证(LVAD 患者)相比,植入前有 VA 病史的患者 1 年内 ICD 治疗的比例显著更高(50%比 24%)。同样,与缺血性心脏病患者相比,非缺血性心肌病患者 ICD 治疗的风险显著更高(50%比 22%)。
ICD 治疗在 LVAD 患者中是安全有效的。植入后 1 年内,34%的 LVAD 患者发生导致 ICD 干预的室性心律失常,其变化很大,取决于潜在的心脏病和先前的心律失常病史。LVAD 植入后原发性预防 ICD 适应证可产生较高的 ICD 干预率。既往 VA 病史强烈预测 LVAD 植入后 ICD 治疗的未来应用。