BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in heart failure (HF). In patients requiring a ventricular assist device (VAD), the benefit from ICD therapy is not well established. The aim of this study was to define the impact of ICD on outcomes in VAD-supported patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed data for consecutive adult HF patients receiving VAD as a bridge to transplantation from 1996 to 2003. The primary outcome was survival to transplantation. A total of 144 VADs were implanted [85 left ventricular (LVAD), 59 biventricular (BIVAD), mean age 50 ± 12 years, 77% male, left ventricular ejection fraction 18 ± 9%, 54% ischemic]. Mean length of support was 119 days (range 1-670); 103 patients (72%) survived to transplantation. Forty-five patients had an ICD (33 LVAD, 12 BIVAD). More LVAD patients had an appropriate ICD shock before implantation than after (16 vs 7; P = .02). There was a trend toward higher shock frequency before LVAD implant than after (3.3 ± 5.2 vs 1.1 ± 3.8 shocks/y; P = .06). Mean time to first shock after VAD implant was 129 ± 109 days. LVAD-supported patients with an ICD were significantly more likely to survive to transplantation [1-y actuarial survival to transplantation: LVAD: 91% with ICD vs 57% without ICD (log-rank P = .01); BIVAD: 54% vs 47% (log-rank P = NS)]. An ICD was associated with significantly increased survival in a multivariate model controlling for confounding variables (odds ratio 2.54, 95% confidence interval 1.04-6.21; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Shock frequency decreases after VAD implantation, likely owing to ventricular unloading, but appropriate ICD shocks still occur in 21% of patients. An ICD is associated with improved survival in LVAD-supported HF patients.
BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in heart failure (HF). In patients requiring a ventricular assist device (VAD), the benefit from ICD therapy is not well established. The aim of this study was to define the impact of ICD on outcomes in VAD-supported patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed data for consecutive adult HF patients receiving VAD as a bridge to transplantation from 1996 to 2003. The primary outcome was survival to transplantation. A total of 144 VADs were implanted [85 left ventricular (LVAD), 59 biventricular (BIVAD), mean age 50 ± 12 years, 77% male, left ventricular ejection fraction 18 ± 9%, 54% ischemic]. Mean length of support was 119 days (range 1-670); 103 patients (72%) survived to transplantation. Forty-five patients had an ICD (33 LVAD, 12 BIVAD). More LVADpatients had an appropriate ICD shock before implantation than after (16 vs 7; P = .02). There was a trend toward higher shock frequency before LVAD implant than after (3.3 ± 5.2 vs 1.1 ± 3.8 shocks/y; P = .06). Mean time to first shock after VAD implant was 129 ± 109 days. LVAD-supported patients with an ICD were significantly more likely to survive to transplantation [1-y actuarial survival to transplantation: LVAD: 91% with ICD vs 57% without ICD (log-rank P = .01); BIVAD: 54% vs 47% (log-rank P = NS)]. An ICD was associated with significantly increased survival in a multivariate model controlling for confounding variables (odds ratio 2.54, 95% confidence interval 1.04-6.21; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Shock frequency decreases after VAD implantation, likely owing to ventricular unloading, but appropriate ICD shocks still occur in 21% of patients. An ICD is associated with improved survival in LVAD-supported HF patients.
Authors: E A Rose; A C Gelijns; A J Moskowitz; D F Heitjan; L W Stevenson; W Dembitsky; J W Long; D D Ascheim; A R Tierney; R G Levitan; J T Watson; P Meier; N S Ronan; P A Shapiro; R M Lazar; L W Miller; L Gupta; O H Frazier; P Desvigne-Nickens; M C Oz; V L Poirier Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-11-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Daniel J Cantillon; Khaldoun G Tarakji; Dharam J Kumbhani; Nicholas G Smedira; Randall C Starling; Bruce L Wilkoff Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Amrut V Ambardekar; Larry A Allen; Joann Lindenfeld; Christopher M Lowery; Anne P Cannon; Joseph C Cleveland; Andreas Brieke; William H Sauer Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2010-03-29 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Helmut Klein; David J Wilber; David S Cannom; James P Daubert; Steven L Higgins; Mary W Brown; Mark L Andrews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hanno Oswald; Claudia Schultz-Wildelau; Ajmal Gardiwal; Ulrich Lüsebrink; Thorben König; Anna Meyer; David Duncker; Maximilian A Pichlmaier; Gunnar Klein; Martin Strüber Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Elizabeth A Genovese; Mary Amanda Dew; Jeffrey J Teuteberg; Marc A Simon; Joy Kay; Michael P Siegenthaler; Jay K Bhama; Christian A Bermudez; Kathleen L Lockard; Steve Winowich; Robert L Kormos Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: David Foo; Bruce D Walker; Dennis L Kuchar; Charles W Thorburn; Andre Tay; Christopher S Hayward; Peter Macdonald; Anne Keogh; Eugene Kotlyar; Philip Spratt; Paul Jansz Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Kevin J Clerkin; Veli K Topkara; Donna M Mancini; Melana Yuzefpolskaya; Ryan T Demmer; Jose M Dizon; Koji Takeda; Hiroo Takayama; Yoshifumi Naka; Paolo C Colombo; A Reshad Garan Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: David M Tehrani; Sirtaz Adatya; Jonathan Grinstein; Daniel Rodgers; Nitasha Sarswat; Gene H Kim; Jayant Raikhelkar; Gabriel Sayer; Nir Uriel Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Kevin J Clerkin; Veli K Topkara; Ryan T Demmer; Jose M Dizon; Melana Yuzefpolskaya; Justin A Fried; Xingchen Mai; Donna M Mancini; Koji Takeda; Hiroo Takayama; Yoshifumi Naka; Paolo C Colombo; A Reshad Garan Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 12.035