Electromagnetic Interference from Left Ventricular Assist Devices detected in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillators

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seth H. Sheldon ◽  
Mohammad‐Ali Jazayeri ◽  
Michael Pierpoline ◽  
Moghniuddin Mohammed ◽  
Valay Parikh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Electromagnetic Interference ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillators

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

EP Europace ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 584-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yunus C Yalcin ◽  
Claudette Kooij ◽  
Dominic A M J Theuns ◽  
Alina A Constantinescu ◽  
Jasper J Brugts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Electromagnetic Interference ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist ◽  
Single Centre Study ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillators

Abstract 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.

scholarly journals Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators in patients with left ventricular assist devices: case report and comprehensive review

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
María López-Gil ◽  
Adolfo Fontenla ◽  
Juan F Delgado ◽  
Daniel Rodríguez-Muñoz
Keyword(s):  
Electromagnetic Interference ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist

Abstract Background Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are increasingly used in patients with advanced heart failure, many of whom have been or will be implanted with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Interaction between both devices is a matter of concern. Subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) obtains its signals through subcutaneous vectors, which poses special challenges with regards to adequate performance following LVAD implantation. Case summary We describe the case of a 24-year-old man implanted with an S-ICD because of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, severe biventricular dysfunction, and self-limiting sustained ventricular tachycardias. After the implantation of a HeartMate 3™ (Left Ventricular Assist System, Abbott) several months later, the S-ICD became useless because of inappropriate sensing due to electromagnetic interference and attenuation of QRS voltage. Discussion We reviewed the reported cases in PubMed about the concomitant use of S-ICD and LVAD. Seven case reports about the performance of S-ICD in patients with an LVAD were identified, with discordant results. From these articles, we analyse the potential causes for these differing results. Pump location and operating rates in LVAD, as well as changes in the subcutaneous-electrocardiogram detected by the S-ICD after LVAD implantation are related to sensing disturbances when used in the same patient.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document