Left ventricular assist device in the presence of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Data from a multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly used strategy for the management of patients with advanced heart failure (HF). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) might be a viable alternative to conventional ICDs with a lower risk of short- and long-term of device-related complications and infections.The aim of this multicenter study was to evaluate the outcomes and management of S-ICD recipients who underwent LVAD implantation. METHODS: The study population included patients with a preexisting S-ICD who underwent LVAD implantation for advanced HF despite optimal medical therapy. RESULTS: The study population included 30 patients (25 male; median age 45 [38-52] years).The HeartMate III was the most common LVAD type. Median follow-up in the setting of concomitant use of S-ICDs and LVADs was 7 months (1-20).There were no reports of inability to interrogate S-ICD systems in this population. Electromagnetic interference (EMI) occurred in 21 (70%) patients. The primary sensing vector was the one most significantly involved in determining EMI. Twenty-seven patients (90%) remained eligible for S-ICD implantation with at least one optimal sensing vector. The remaining 3 patients (10%) were ineligible for S-ICD after attempts of reprogramming of sensing vectors. Six patients (20%) experienced inappropriate shocks (IS) due to EMI. Six patients (20%) experienced appropriate shocks. No S-ICD extraction because of need for antitachycardia pacing, ineffective therapy or infection was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of LVAD and S-ICD is feasible in most patients. However, the potential risk of EMI oversensing, IS and undersensing in the post-operative period following LVAD implantation should be considered. Careful screening for EMI should be performed in all sensing vectors after LVAD implantation.

Anticoagulation alone as an effective and safe antithrombotic therapy in LVAD: When less is more.

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of anticoagulation alone in HeartMate3 patients. According to antithrombotic regimen, patients were divided into 2 groups: Group-1(warfarin+aspirin) and Group-2(warfarin). A comparison of hemocompatibility-related adverse events (HRAEs), hemocompatibility score (HCS), and hemocoagulative laboratory markers, both qualitative and quantitative, between the 2 groups were performed. Fifty patients were enrolled, 28 (56%) in Group-1 and 22 in Group-2 (44%), without statistical differences at baseline. Median time of follow-up was 590 days (IQR: 410.25-1007.50). Eighteen HRAEs (36.0%) occurred: 17 in Group-1 (34%) and 1 in Group-2 (2%) (P < 0.001). The net HCS for Group-1 versus Group-2 was 24 points and 1 point (OR 12.116[2.034-233.226], P = 0.023), respectively. Hemocoagulative values turned into the normality and remained stable during follow-up, without differences between groups, except for ASPI-test (P = 0.003). HeartMate3 showed a high hemocompatibility independently from antithrombotic therapy. Aspirin avoidance resulted a safe and effective strategy since it reduced hemorrhagic events, without increasing thrombotic risk.