RESUMO
Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillation (ICD) shocks after left ventricular assist device therapy (LVAD) are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Little is known about the association of pre-LVAD ICD shocks on post-LVAD clinical outcomes and whether LVAD therapy affects the prevalence of ICD shocks. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine whether pre-LVAD ICD shocks are associated with adverse clinical outcomes post-LVAD and to compare the prevalence of ICD shocks before and after LVAD therapy. Methods: Patients 18 years or older with continuous-flow LVADs and ICDs were retrospectively identified within the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center system from 2006-2020. We analyzed the association between appropriate ICD shocks within 1 year pre-LVAD with a primary composite outcome of death, stroke, and pump thrombosis and secondary outcomes of post-LVAD ICD shocks and ICD shock hospitalizations. Results: Among 309 individuals, average age was 57 ± 12 years, 87% were male, 80% had ischemic cardiomyopathy, and 42% were bridge to transplantation. Seventy-one patients (23%) experienced pre-LVAD shocks, and 69 (22%) experienced post-LVAD shocks. The overall prevalence of shocks pre-LVAD and post-LVAD were not different. Pre-LVAD ICD shocks were not associated with the composite outcome. Pre-LVAD ICD shocks were found to predict post-LVAD shocks (hazard ratio [HR] 5.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.42-9.48; P <.0001) and hospitalizations related to ICD shocks from ventricular arrhythmia (HR 10.34; 95% CI 4.1-25.7; P <.0001). Conclusion: Pre-LVAD ICD shocks predicted post-LVAD ICD shocks and hospitalizations but were not associated with the composite outcome of death, pump thrombosis, or stroke at 1 year. The prevalence of appropriate ICD shocks was similar before and after LVAD implantation in the entire cohort.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Riata and Riata ST leads (St Jude Medical, Sylmar, CA) are prone to failure. There are no independent multicenter reports regarding Riata or Riata ST lead performance. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a retrospective multicenter study of Riata and Riata ST leads that were implanted and followed at 7 centers. METHODS: The study included adults who received St Jude Medical Riata or Riata ST leads. Data for Quattro Secure leads were obtained from an earlier study. RESULTS: From 2002 to 2010, 1081 patients received a Riata (n = 774) or Riata ST (n = 307) lead. Follow-up was longer for Riata than Riata ST leads (4.2 ± 2.4 years vs 3.3 ± 1.7 years; P<.0001). During the study, 67 leads failed (6.2%), including 62 of 774 Riata (8.0%) and 5 of 307 Riata ST (1.6%) leads. Forty-seven of 67 lead failures (70.1%) were caused by electrical malfunction, and 20 lead failures (29.9%) were due to externalized conductors (ECs) that were electrically intact. Of 110 leads examined fluoroscopically, ECs were found in 26 of 81 Riata (32%) and 1 of 29 Riata ST (3.4%) leads. Of 26 Riata leads with ECs, 7 (27%) were malfunctioning. Riata leads had lower overall and malfunction free survival compared to Quattro leads (P<.0001), while Riata ST lead survival was not different (P = .422). CONCLUSIONS: The survival of Riata (but not Riata ST) leads was lower than Quattro leads; however, Riata ST leads had significantly shorter follow-up than Riata leads. ECs were common in Riata leads, and more than a quarter of Riata leads that had ECs were malfunctioning. Our observations suggest that systematic fluoroscopic examination of patients with Riata leads is appropriate.
