Emerging electromagnetic interferences between implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and left ventricular assist devices. Issue 4 (31st January 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yalcin, Yunus C; Kooij, Claudette; Theuns, Dominic A M J; Constantinescu, Alina A; Brugts, Jasper J; Manintveld, Olivier C; Yap, Sing-Chien; Szili-Torok, Tamas; Bogers, Ad J J C; Caliskan, Kadir
• Is Part Of: Europace. Volume 22:Issue 4(2020)
• Page Start: 584
• Page End: 587
• Publication Date: 2020-01-31
• Subjects: Left ventricular assist device -- Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator -- Pacemaker -- End-stage heart failure -- Electromagnetic interference; Arrhythmia -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Catheter ablation -- Periodicals; Heart -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1093/europace/euaa006
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1099-5129

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: To investigate the prevalence of electromagnetic interference (EMI) between left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs)/pacemakers (PMs). Methods and results: A retrospective single-centre study was conducted, including all patients undergoing HeartMate II (HMII) and HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD implantation ( n = 106). Electromagnetic interference was determined by the inability to interrogate the ICD/PM. Overall, 85 (mean age 59 ± 8, 79% male) patients had an ICD/PM at the time of LVAD implantation; 46 patients with HMII and 40 patients with HM3. Among the 85 LVAD patients with an ICD's/PM's, 11 patients (13%) experienced EMI; 6 patients (15%) with an HMII and 5 patients (11%) with an HM3 ( P = 0.59). Electromagnetic interference from the HMII LVADs was only present in patients with a St Jude/Abbott device; 6 of the 23 St Jude/Abbott devices. However, in the HM3 patients, EMI was mainly present in patients with Biotronik devices: 4 of the 18 with only one (1/25) patient with a Medtronic device. While initial interrogation of these devices was not successful, none of the 11 cases experienced pacing inhibition or inappropriate shocks. Conclusion: In summary, the prevalence of EMI between ICDs in the older and newer type of LVAD's remains rather high. While HMII patients experienced EMI with a St Jude/Abbott device (which was already known), HM3 LVAD patients experience EMI mainly with Biotronik devices. Prospective follow-up, preferably in large registries, is warranted to investigate the overall prevalence and impact of EMI in LVAD patients.