Fusion cardiac resynchronization therapy in an left ventricular assist device patient from two devices and crossing leads: a case report. Issue 9 (17th August 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Egorova, Anastasia D; van Erven, Lieselot; Beeres, Saskia L M A; Tops, Laurens F
• Editors: Arroyo, Reuben Casado; Borovac, Josip Andelo; Gambaro, Alessia; Farre, Nuria; Baghdasaryan, Lilit; Olsen, Flemming Javier; ElSamad, Sherif Mohammad Abd; Tindale, Alexander; Kott, Katharine
• Is Part Of: European heart journal. Volume 5:Issue 9(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-08-17
• Subjects: Cardiac implantable electronic devices -- Cardiac resynchronization therapy -- Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator -- Heart failure -- Left ventricular assist device -- Complications -- Venous occlusion -- Case report; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Cardiology -- Case studies -- Periodicals; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Heart -- Diseases -- Case studies -- Periodicals; 616.12
• DOI: 10.1093/ehjcr/ytab335
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2514-2119

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIED) have significantly improved the survival and quality of life in heart failure patients. Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) have a major role in patients with moderate to severe heart failure symptoms, the role of these devices in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is not yet well defined. The burden of CIED-related procedures in patients with an LVAD is high. The price of lead malfunctions and pocket complications requires creative approaches to tackle CIED-related issues in this patient population. Case summary: Here, we describe the clinical course of a 67-year-old ventricular pacing dependent LVAD patient with an ICD indication based on recurrent monomorphic ventricular tachycardias and a CRT indication due to previous deterioration of (right-sided) heart failure in the absence of biventricular pacing. We were confronted with impending right ventricular lead failure and bilateral venous access problems due to chronic subclavian vein occlusion in a patient with a total of five transvenous leads, therapeutic anticoagulation, and pronounced thoracic collaterals. We sought for a creative solution to be able to deliver effective biventricular fusion pacing with the existing leads from two contralateral pulse generators resulting in biventricular fusion pacing. This provided the solution to deliver effective CRT. Discussion: This case illustrates the complexity of care and CIED-related decision-making in pacing dependent LVAD patients, in particularly those with an ICD and CRT indication.