Andrew Y Lin1, Hao Tran1, Michela Brambatti1, Eric Adler1, Victor Pretorius2, Travis Pollema2, Jonathan C Hsu1, Gregory K Feld1, Kurt Hoffmayer1, Frederick Han1, David Krummen1, Gordon Ho3. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Institute, University of California San Diego, 9452 Medical Center Dr. MC 7411, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA. 2. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Cardiovascular Institute, University of California San Diego, 9452 Medical Center Dr., La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Institute, University of California San Diego, 9452 Medical Center Dr. MC 7411, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA. goho@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) are common in patients after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implant and are associated with worse outcomes. However, the prevalence and impact of VA in patients with durable biventricular assist device (BIVAD) is unknown. We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with BIVADs to evaluate the prevalence of VA and their clinical outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive patients who received a BIVAD between June 2014 and July 2017 at our medical center were included. The prevalence of VA, defined as sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation requiring defibrillation or ICD therapy, was compared between BIVAD patients and a propensity-matched population of patients with LVAD from our center. The occurrence of adverse clinical events was compared between BIVAD patients with and without VA. RESULTS: Of the 13 patients with BIVADs, 6 patients (46%) experienced clinically significant VA, similar to a propensity-matched LVAD population (38%, p = 1.00). There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the two cohorts, except patients in the non-VA group who had worse hemodynamics (mitral regurgitation and right-sided indices), had less history of VA, and were younger. BIVAD patients with VA had a higher incidence of major bleeding (MR 3.05 (1.07-8.66), p = 0.036) and worse composite outcomes (log-rank test, p = 0.046). The presence of VA was associated with worse outcomes in both LVAD and BIVAD groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ventricular arrhythmias are common in patients with BIVADs and are associated with worse outcomes. Future work should assess whether therapies such as ablation improve the outcome of BIVAD patients with VA.
PURPOSE: Ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) are common in patients after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implant and are associated with worse outcomes. However, the prevalence and impact of VA in patients with durable biventricular assist device (BIVAD) is unknown. We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with BIVADs to evaluate the prevalence of VA and their clinical outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive patients who received a BIVAD between June 2014 and July 2017 at our medical center were included. The prevalence of VA, defined as sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation requiring defibrillation or ICD therapy, was compared between BIVAD patients and a propensity-matched population of patients with LVAD from our center. The occurrence of adverse clinical events was compared between BIVAD patients with and without VA. RESULTS: Of the 13 patients with BIVADs, 6 patients (46%) experienced clinically significant VA, similar to a propensity-matched LVAD population (38%, p = 1.00). There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the two cohorts, except patients in the non-VA group who had worse hemodynamics (mitral regurgitation and right-sided indices), had less history of VA, and were younger. BIVAD patients with VA had a higher incidence of major bleeding (MR 3.05 (1.07-8.66), p = 0.036) and worse composite outcomes (log-rank test, p = 0.046). The presence of VA was associated with worse outcomes in both LVAD and BIVAD groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ventricular arrhythmias are common in patients with BIVADs and are associated with worse outcomes. Future work should assess whether therapies such as ablation improve the outcome of BIVAD patients with VA.
Authors: Marwan M Refaat; Toshikazu Tanaka; Robert L Kormos; Dennis McNamara; Jeffrey Teuteberg; Steve Winowich; Barry London; Marc A Simon Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 5.712
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: Hao A Tran; Travis L Pollema; Jorge Silva Enciso; Barry H Greenberg; Denise D Barnard; Eric D Adler; Victor G Pretorius Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2018 May/Jun Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Ohad Ziv; Jose Dizon; Amit Thosani; Yoshifumi Naka; Anthony R Magnano; Hasan Garan Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-05-03 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mehul Patel; Francia Rojas; Farshad Raissi Shabari; Leo Simpson; William Cohn; O H Frazier; Hari Mallidi; Jie Cheng; Nilesh Mathuria Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2015-11-04
Authors: David Snipelisky; Yogesh N V Reddy; Kevin Manocha; Aalok Patel; Shannon M Dunlay; Paul A Friedman; Thomas M Munger; Samuel J Asirvatham; Douglas L Packer; Yong-Mei Cha; Suraj Kapa; Peter A Brady; Peter A Noseworthy; Joseph J Maleszewski; Siva K Mulpuru Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2016-11-21
Authors: Monica Dobrovie; Ricardo A Spampinato; Elena Efimova; Jaqueline G da Rocha E Silva; Julia Fischer; Michael Kuehl; Jens-Uwe Voigt; Ann Belmans; Agnieszka Ciarka; Fernanda Bonamigo Thome; Valerie Schloma; Yaroslava Dmitrieva; Sven Lehmann; Jochen Hahn; Elfriede Strotdrees; Friedrich-Wilhelm Mohr; Jens Garbade; Anna L Meyer Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Christopher T Sparrow; Michael E Nassif; David S Raymer; Eric Novak; Shane J LaRue; Joel D Schilling Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 12.035