Interférence électromagnétique entre défibrillateur implantable et dispositif d’assistance circulatoire

Moini, Cyrus; Lefoulon, A.; Rahim, Dinaryati; Yassine, Mohamed; Poindron, Damien; Amara, W.

doi:10.1016/j.ancard.2020.09.029

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillators Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are currently considered primary and secondary prevention techniques for sudden cardiac death in patients with HF, but perspectives on their utility in patients following VAD implantation are mixed [55]. A case of electromagnetic interference produced by ICD and LVAD was described by Moini et al [56]. Erqou et al [47] described a case in which the LVAD interfered with the ICD function due to electromagnetic interference.…”

Section: Ablationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of New-Onset Ventricular Arrhythmia after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

Shi

Liu³

2022

Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Heart failure (HF) is a severe and terminal stage of various heart diseases. Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are relatively mature and have contributed to the treatment of end-stage HF. Ventricular arrhythmia (VA) is a common complication after LVAD implantation, including ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation, both of which may cause abnormal circulation. Methods: A literature search was conducted in the PubMed database, “Ventricular Arrhythmia” OR “VA” OR “Arrhythmia” OR “Ventricular Tachycardia,” OR “Ventricular Fibrillation” AND “LVAD” OR “Left Ventricular Assist Device” OR “Heart Assist Device” as either keywords or MeSH terms, the authors screened the titles and abstracts of the articles. Eventually, 12 original research articles were retrieved. Results: The 0.83 [95% CI: 0.77, 0.89] of patients were male. A whole of 53% [95% CI: 0.25, 0.81] of VA patients had a history of atrial fibrillation and 61% [95% CI: 0.52, 0.69] had a history of VA. 39% [95% CI: 0.29, 0.49] of the participants had no prior history of VA and experienced new VA following CF-LVAD implantation. Following CF-LVAD implantation, 59% [95% CI: 0.51, 0.67] of patients developed early VA (VA ≤30 days). The 30-day mortality rate of patients was 4% [95% CI: 0.01, 0.07]. And overall mortality was 28% [95% CI: 0.15, 0.41]. The reported incidence of VA after LVAD implantation is not identical in different medical centers and ranges from 20% to 60%. The mechanism of VA after LVAD implantation is summarized as primary cardiomyopathy-related, device mechanical stimulation, myocardial scarring, ventricular displacement, electrolyte regulation, and other processes. Conclusions: A preoperative VA history is considered a predictor of VA following LVAD implantation in most studies. Multiple mechanisms and factors, such as prevention of “suction events,” ablation, and implantable cardioverter defibrillator, should be considered for the prevention and treatment of postoperative VA in patients requiring long-term VAD treatment. This study provides a reference for the clinical application of LAVD and the prevention of postoperative VA after LVAD implantation. Future multicenter prospective studies with uniform patient follow-up are needed to screen for additional potential risk factors and predictors. These studies will help to define the incidence rate of VA after LAVD implantation. As a result, we provide guidance for the selection of preventive intervention.

show abstract

Section: Ablationmentioning

confidence: 99%