Pausch Jonas, Mersmann Julian, Bhadra Oliver D, Barten Markus J, Tönnis Tobias, Yildirim Yalin, Pecha Simon, Reichenspurner Hermann, Bernhardt Alexander M
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Department of Cardiology, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023 Jun 2;10:1158248. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1158248. eCollection 2023.
Implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) reduces the risk of all-cause mortality in symptomatic heart failure (HF) patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Nevertheless, the prognostic impact of ICD therapy in continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients remains controversial.
162 consecutive HF patients, who underwent LVAD implantation at our institution between 2010 and 2019, were categorized according to the presence () or absence ( of ICDs. Apart from clinical baseline and follow-up parameters, adverse events (AEs) related to ICD therapy and overall survival rates were retrospectively analyzed.
Out of 162 consecutive LVAD recipients 79 patients (48.8%) were preoperatively categorized as Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile ≤2. The prevalence of severe HF symptoms and preoperative use of short-term circulatory support devices (54.4% vs. 13.8%, < 0.001) was higher within the Control-group, although baseline severity of LV and RV dysfunction was similar. Apart from an increased prevalence of perioperative right heart failure (RHF) within the Control-group (45.6% vs. 17.0%; < 0.001), procedural characteristics and perioperative outcome were similar. Overall-survival during a median follow-up of 14 (3.0-36.5) months was similar within both groups ( = 0.46). During the first 2 years after LVAD implantation 53 ICD-related AEs occurred within the ICD-group. Thereof, lead-dysfunction occurred in 19 patients and unplanned ICD-reintervention in 11 patients. Furthermore, in 18 patients appropriate shocks without loss of consciousness occurred, whereas inappropriate shocks occurred in 5 patients.
ICD therapy in LVAD recipients was not associated with a survival benefit or reduced morbidity after LVAD implantation. Conservative ICD-programming seems to be justified to avoid ICD-related complications and "awake shocks" after LVAD implantation.
植入植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)可降低有症状心力衰竭(HF)且左心室(LV)功能严重不全患者的全因死亡风险。然而,ICD治疗对持续血流左心室辅助装置(LVAD)植入者的预后影响仍存在争议。
对2010年至2019年间在我院接受LVAD植入的162例连续性HF患者,根据是否植入ICD进行分类。除临床基线和随访参数外,对与ICD治疗相关的不良事件(AE)和总生存率进行回顾性分析。
在162例连续性LVAD植入者中,79例患者(48.8%)术前被归类为机构间机械辅助循环支持注册系统(INTERMACS) profile≤2。尽管左心室和右心室功能障碍的基线严重程度相似,但对照组中严重HF症状的患病率和术前短期循环支持装置的使用率更高(54.4%对13.8%,P<0.001)。除对照组围手术期右心衰竭(RHF)患病率增加外(45.6%对17.0%;P<0.001),手术特征和围手术期结果相似。两组在中位随访14(3.0 - 36.5)个月期间的总生存率相似(P = 0.46)。在LVAD植入后的前2年,ICD组发生了53例与ICD相关的AE。其中,19例患者发生导线功能障碍,11例患者进行了非计划的ICD再次干预。此外,18例患者发生了无意识丧失的恰当电击,5例患者发生了不恰当电击。
LVAD植入者的ICD治疗与LVAD植入后的生存获益或发病率降低无关。保守的ICD程控似乎有必要,以避免LVAD植入后与ICD相关的并发症和“清醒电击”。