OBJECTIVES: Wide QRS duration and ventricular pacing are common in recipients of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) but their impact on outcomes remains unclear. We assessed the clinical and arrhythmic outcomes of CF-LVAD patients with wide QRS or right ventricular (RV) pacing at baseline, compared with those with narrow QRS and those with continued cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 520 patients (57 ± 13 years) with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (n = 240) or CRT-defibrillator (n = 280) who underwent CF-LVAD implantation at 5 centers in 2007-2015 were studied. Patients were divided into 3 groups: ICD-N (QRS ≤120 ms; n = 134), ICD-W (QRS >120 ms; n = 106), and CRT (n = 280). Mortality, hospitalization, and ventricular arrhythmia (VA) incidence were compared among the groups. Baseline QRS duration was different among the groups (100 ± 13 [ICD-N] vs 155 ± 26 [ICD-W] vs 159 ± 29 ms [CRT]; P < .0001). In the ICD-W group, 37 (35%) had >80% RV pacing at baseline. Median biventricular pacing in the CRT group was 96%. Over 523 days of CF-LVAD support, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no difference in survival among groups (log rank P = .9). According to multivariate Cox regression, wide QRS duration and RV pacing were not associated with survival. QRS narrowed during CF-LVAD support in the ICD-W and CRT groups but was not associated with improved survival (P = .9). No differences were noted among the groups in hospitalizations (P = .9), VA (P = .2), or ICD shocks (P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: In this large CF-LVAD cohort, a wide QRS duration, high percentage of RV pacing at baseline, and changes in QRS duration after LVAD implantation were not associated with survival. Continued CRT after CF-LVAD implantation also was not associated with improved survival or HF hospitalizations.
OBJECTIVES: Wide QRS duration and ventricular pacing are common in recipients of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) but their impact on outcomes remains unclear. We assessed the clinical and arrhythmic outcomes of CF-LVADpatients with wide QRS or right ventricular (RV) pacing at baseline, compared with those with narrow QRS and those with continued cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 520 patients (57 ± 13 years) with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (n = 240) or CRT-defibrillator (n = 280) who underwent CF-LVAD implantation at 5 centers in 2007-2015 were studied. Patients were divided into 3 groups: ICD-N (QRS ≤120 ms; n = 134), ICD-W (QRS >120 ms; n = 106), and CRT (n = 280). Mortality, hospitalization, and ventricular arrhythmia (VA) incidence were compared among the groups. Baseline QRS duration was different among the groups (100 ± 13 [ICD-N] vs 155 ± 26 [ICD-W] vs 159 ± 29 ms [CRT]; P < .0001). In the ICD-W group, 37 (35%) had >80% RV pacing at baseline. Median biventricular pacing in the CRT group was 96%. Over 523 days of CF-LVAD support, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no difference in survival among groups (log rank P = .9). According to multivariate Cox regression, wide QRS duration and RV pacing were not associated with survival. QRS narrowed during CF-LVAD support in the ICD-W and CRT groups but was not associated with improved survival (P = .9). No differences were noted among the groups in hospitalizations (P = .9), VA (P = .2), or ICD shocks (P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: In this large CF-LVAD cohort, a wide QRS duration, high percentage of RV pacing at baseline, and changes in QRS duration after LVAD implantation were not associated with survival. Continued CRT after CF-LVAD implantation also was not associated with improved survival or HF hospitalizations.