ICD shocks in LVAD patients are not associated with increased subsequent mortality risk
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks are associated with increased mortality risk in heart failure patients. Whether ICD shocks are associated with mortality in continuous flow LVAD (CF-LVAD) patients is unknown. We studied the relationship of ICD shocks and ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) to morbidity and mortality in CF-LVAD-supported patients in our institution.
Single-center, retrospective study of prospectively collected ICD and LVAD databases. We analyzed data on VA which received ICD therapy in patients who underwent CF-LVAD implantation at Hartford Hospital between 2008 and 2018.
A total of 157 patients were studied. During a median follow-up of 10 months (interquartile range 5–20 months), 48 patients (30.6%) experienced post-LVAD sustained VA. Thirty patients (19.1%) had appropriate shocks for VA and 5 patients (3.1%) had inappropriate shocks. Shocks for any arrhythmia were not associated with an increased risk of death (OR 0.836, 95% CI 0.224–3.115, p = 0.789). Neither post-LVAD VA nor the rate of VA was associated with an increased mortality risk (OR 0.662 [0.329–1.334], p = 0.248; OR 1.001 [0.989–1.014], p = 0.817, respectively). Cox multivariate regression analysis revealed pre-LVAD VA as a significant predictor of VA post LVAD implantation (OR 3.284 [1.584–6.808], p = 0.001). Symptoms with VA occurred in 22 (45.8%) patients, ranging from palpitations to near syncope/syncope. None of the variables including the rate of VA was associated with death or symptoms.
VAs are common in CF-LVAD patients and occur with higher frequency in those with pre-LVAD VA and frequently cause symptoms. Neither VA nor ICD shocks are associated with mortality risk.
KeywordsLVAD Ventricular arrhythmia ICD shocks Mortality Symptoms
Left ventricular assist device
Bridge to transplant
Bridge to decision
We thank Poojita Shivamurthy, MD (Mount Sinai Hospital, NY), for her initial work in the study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The study was approved by the Hartford HealthCare Institutional Review Board.
- 1.Connolly SJ, Hallstrom AP, Cappato R, Schron EB, Kuck KH, Zipes DP, et al. Meta-analysis of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator secondary prevention trials. AVID, CASH and CIDS studies. Antiarrhythmics vs Implantable Defibrillator study. Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg . Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study. Eur Heart J. 2000;21:2071–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Garan AR, Yuzefpolskaya M, Colombo PC, Morrow JP, Te-Frey R, Dano D, et al. Ventricular arrhythmias and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: need for primary prevention? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:2542–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Greet BD, Pujara D, Burkland D, Pollet M, Sudhakar D, Rojas F, et al. Incidence, predictors, and significance of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: a 15-year institutional experience. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;4:257–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Richardson TD, Hale L, Arteaga C, Xu M, Keebler M, Schlendorf K, et al. Prospective randomized evaluation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming in patients with a left ventricular assist device. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.007748.