Twelve hours of sustained ventricular fibrillation supported by a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy improves survival and quality of life by mechanically unloading the left ventricle and maintaining hemodynamics in patients with end-stage heart failure. LVADs can also be lifesaving by maintaining hemodynamics during ventricular arrhythmia. Continuous-flow LVADs have become the preferred LVAD technology. As presented here, a continuous-flow LVAD successfully provided hemodynamic support to a patient in sustained ventricular fibrillation for over 12 hours when the internal defibrillator was unable to terminate the arrhythmia. This case demonstrates that continuous-flow LVADs can be lifesaving in the setting of otherwise certain hemodynamic collapse from sustained ventricular fibrillation.     

Sustained Ventricular Fibrillation in an Alert Patient: Preserved Hemodynamics with a Left Ventricular Assist Device

Abstract

Emergency medical services (EMS) encountered an alert patient with sustained ventricular fibrillation with preserved hemodynamics via a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Multiple firings of the patient's implantable defibrillator were the only sign that this patient was experiencing the usually fatal ventricular arrhythmia. Initial attempts at rhythm conversion with amiodarone and 200-J biphasic shocks were unsuccessful. The patient was finally defibrillated to normal sinus rhythm after a 360-J biphasic shock. This case conference highlights the increasing prevalence of LVADs. These devices are used not only as a bridge to cardiac transplantation, but also as definitive therapy for patients in end-stage cardiac failure. Ventricular fibrillation has been shown to be well tolerated in patients with LVADs, and we discuss a standard of care for these patients. The occurrence of sustained ventricular fibrillation in patients with ventricular assist devices represents a challenging situation for EMS and emergency department providers and one that will be increasingly encountered in the future.     

Management of adult patients with a left ventricular assist device.

The number of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantations is growing as a result of increased waiting periods for cardiac transplantation and the decreased availability of organ donors. Furthermore, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved permanent LVAD support. After an acute hospitalization, patients with LVADs may need prolonged convalescence in a healthcare facility because they have complex medical needs and are physically disabled. Admission criteria need to be developed as essential patient and nursing competencies need to be defined as a part of a successful LVAD program in an acute rehabilitation center. Acute rehabilitation centers can help patients with LVADs transition to a home setting.     

Prehospital care of left ventricular assist device patients by emergency medical services

Abstract Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are frequently implanted as permanent (bridge to destination [BTD]) or temporary (bridge to transplantation [BTT]) cardiac support. When LVAD patients are discharged to home, they are very likely to require emergency medical services (EMS), but there is very little literature on out-of-hospital emergency care for patients with LVADs. We present two typical cases of LVAD patients for whom EMS was called. In the first case, the patient was in an ambulance two hours distant from our university hospital when a pulsatile system malfunctioned. In the second case, EMS was called to an unconscious LVAD patient. Emergency reference cards, training programs for emergency medical staff, and a 24-hour emergency hotline for the local VAD team are advisable. Key words: left ventricular assist device; emergency medical services; prehospital care.     

Prehospital Care of Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients by Emergency Medical Services

Abstract

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are frequently implanted as permanent (bridge to destination [BTD]) or temporary (bridge to transplantation [BTT]) cardiac support. When LVAD patients are discharged to home, they are very likely to require emergency medical services (EMS), but there is very little literature on out-of-hospital emergency care for patients with LVADs. We present two typical cases of LVAD patients for whom EMS was called. In the first case, the patient was in an ambulance two hours distant from our university hospital when a pulsatile system malfunctioned. In the second case, EMS was called to an unconscious LVAD patient. Emergency reference cards, training programs for emergency medical staff, and a 24-hour emergency hotline for the local VAD team are advisable.     

Left Ventricular Mechanical Assist Devices and Cardiac Device Interactions: An Observational Case Series

Background: Nonpulsatile left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly used for treatment of refractory heart failure. A majority of such patients have implanted cardiac devices, namely implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) or cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker (CRT-P) or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) devices. However, potential interactions between LVADs and cardiac devices in this category of patients remain unknown.
Methods: We reviewed case records and device logs of 15 patients with ICDs or CRT-P or CRT-D devices who subsequently had implantation of a VentrAssist LVAD (Ventracor Ltd., Chatswood, Australia) as destination therapy or bridge to heart transplantation. Pacemaker and ICD lead parameters before and after LVAD implant were compared. In addition, ventricular tachyarrhythmia event logs and potential electromagnetic interference reports were evaluated.
Results: Right ventricular (RV) sensing decreased in the first 6 months post-LVAD. Mean R-wave amplitude preimplant was 10.9 ± 5.25 mV compared with 7.2 ± 3.4 mV during follow-up (P = 0.02). RV impedance also decreased from 642 ± 240 ohms at baseline to 580 ± 212 ohms at follow-up (P = 0.007). There was a significant increase in RV stimulation threshold following implantation of the LVAD from 0.8 ± 0.6 V at baseline to 1.4 ± 1.0 V in the first 6 months postimplant (P = 0.01). A marked increase in ventricular tachyarrhythmia burden was observed in three patients. One patient displayed electromagnetic interference between the LVAD and defibrillator, resulting in inappropriate defibrillation therapy.
Conclusions: LVADs have a definite impact on cardiac devices in respect with alteration of lead parameters, ventricular tachyarrhythmias, and electromagnetic interference.     

Left ventricular assist devices and their complications: A review for emergency clinicians

IntroductionEnd stage heart failure is associated with high mortality. However, recent developments such as the ventricular assist device (VAD) have improved patient outcomes, with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) most commonly implanted.ObjectiveThis narrative review evaluates LVAD epidemiology, indications, normal function and components, and the assessment and management of complications in the emergency department (ED).DiscussionThe LVAD is a life-saving device in patients with severe heart failure. While first generation devices provided pulsatile flow, current LVAD devices produce continuous flow. Normal components include the pump, inflow and outflow cannulas, driveline, and external controller. Complications related to the LVAD can be divided into those that are LVAD-specific and LVAD-associated, and many of these complications can result in severe patient morbidity and mortality. LVAD-specific complications include device malfunction/failure, pump thrombosis, and suction event, while LVAD-associated complications include bleeding, cerebrovascular event, infection, right ventricular failure, dysrhythmia, and aortic regurgitation. Assessment of LVAD function, patient perfusion, and mean arterial pressure is needed upon presentation. Electrocardiogram and bedside ultrasound are key evaluations in the ED. LVAD evaluation and management require a team-based approach, and consultation with the LVAD specialist is recommended.ConclusionEmergency clinician knowledge of LVAD function, components, and complications is integral in optimizing care of these patients.     

The Perioperative Management of Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery

ObjectiveTo describe the perioperative management of patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) who require general anesthesia while undergoing noncardiac surgery (NCS) at a single, large tertiary referral center.Patients and MethodsElectronic medical records from September 2, 2005, through May 31, 2012, were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate the perioperative management and outcomes in LVAD patients undergoing NCS. Patients were included only if they required a general anesthetic and had previously been discharged from the hospital after initial LVAD implantation.ResultsThirty-three patients with LVADs underwent general anesthesia for 67 noncardiac operations. The mean ± SD time from LVAD implantation to NCS was 317±349 days. All but 1 patient had axial flow LVADs. Anticoagulation or antiplatelet agents were present within 7 days before NCS in 49 procedures (73%) and reversed in 32 of 49 (65%). No perioperative thrombotic complications related to anticoagulation or antiplatelet reversal were noted. Red blood cell, fresh frozen plasma, and platelet transfusions were administered during 10, 6, and 4 operations, respectively. The only intraoperative complication was surgical bleeding. Postoperative complications were present in 12 patients after NCS and were mainly composed of bleeding. Three patients died within 30 days of NCS, with the causes of death not attributed to NCS.ConclusionPatients with LVAD safely underwent NCS in a multidisciplinary setting that included preoperative optimization by cardiologists familiar with LVADs when feasible. Anticoagulation or antiplatelet agents were present preoperatively in most patients with LVADs and were safely reversed when necessary for NCS. The relatively high occurrence of postoperative bleeding is consistent with previous series.     

Interactions between a Left Ventricular Assist Device and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are approved for both a bridge to cardiac transplantation as well as for destination therapy. Most patients with LVADs have implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and several interactions between LVADs and ICDs have been reported. In the present case, we describe an interaction of an approved LVAD with remote telemetry of a previously implanted Sorin ICD (Sorin Group, Milan, Italy) that could not be resolved with standard shielding techniques. (PACE 2012; 35:e272-e273).     

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for heart failure patients with left ventricular assist devices

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) currently play an important role in the treatment of patients with end-stage heart failure who require a bridge to heart transplantation. As the LVAD population increases, the incidence of cancer patients with an LVAD is assumed to be increasing as well. For gastric cancer patients with an LVAD, surgery may be the only curative treatment, especially as chemotherapy is scarcely available. However, we cannot perform an upper-middle incision in these patients because of the LVAD's location and driveline. Furthermore, to reduce the risk of driveline infection, minimally invasive surgery is desirable. Therefore, laparoscopic surgery is, where possible, suitable for achieving a secure approach to the abdominal cavity. However, laparoscopic surgery for patients with LVAD requires careful consideration not only for anesthetic management, but also for the technical procedure. We ingenuously performed laparoscopic gastrectomy for a gastric cancer patient with LVAD to preserve the device and obtain a good surgical view.     

Quality of life among patients with a left ventricular assist device: what is new?

As more patients have a diagnosis of end-stage heart failure, nurses are more likely to encounter the use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). Currently, LVADs are used as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. However, current research suggests that LVADs may be used as destination therapy for those unable to undergo cardiac transplantation. The technology has been developed to sustain life, but what is the impact of technology on the quality of life? This article reviews current research on the quality of life with an LVAD.     

Leadless pacemaker use in a patient with a durable left ventricular assist device

There is limited known safety and efficacy of leadless pacemaker device use in patients with durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). We present a case of a pacemaker-dependent LVAD patient with infection of permanent transvenous pacemaker who underwent successful implantation of Micra transcatheter pacing system (Medtronic).     

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device and the right ventricle

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have become accepted as treatment for heart failure as a result of improvements in diagnosing and treating left ventricular failure and limited donor availability. In the Pivotal Study of the HeartMate II in the bridge to transplantation population, the incidence of right ventricular failure without the implantation of a right ventricular assist device was 14%, with an additional 6% of the participants ill enough that they required implantation of a right ventricular assist device. This complication increases mortality, cost, and length of stay. This article reviews the screening of LVAD candidates for the probability of right ventricular failure postoperatively, the evaluation of right ventricular function in LVAD candidates, and the optimal management of the right ventricle during the perioperative care of LVAD patients.     

Ventricular arrhythmias after left ventricular assist device implantation

Background: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been used as a bridge to cardiac transplantation and as destination therapy in patients with advanced heart failure. The period after LVAD support is associated with ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) despite ventricular unloading and such VAs can have a detrimental effect on survival. Despite the increasing use of LVAD, little is known regarding post‐LVAD VAs at the molecular level and in vivo. Methods: Forty‐two patients who received LVAD over a 24‐month period were evaluated and grouped on the basis of the presence or absence of VAs during LVAD support. We completed a comparative microarray analyses between six patients who developed ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) after LVAD support and six patients who did not develop VAs after LVAD. Results: VAs occurred in 15 patients (35.7%) during LVAD support at a median post‐LVAD day of 25.2. VAs were strongly associated with nonusage of a β‐blocker post‐LVAD (odds ratio of 7.04, P‐value = 0.001). Analysis of a subset of patients who had VT or VF after LVAD placement showed a decrease in the expression of connexin 43 (0.48 ± 0.07), Na+/K+–ATPase (0.60 ± 0.05), and voltage‐gated K+ channel Kv4.3 (0.42 ± 0.04), and an increase in Na+/Ca2+ exchanger (2.2 ± 0.4) and the structural genes: Titin (2.1 ± 0.2), laminin (1.7 ± 0.4), calsequestrin (1.8 ± 0.5), skeletal muscle isoform of troponin T (5.1 ± 0.9), and skeletal muscle isoform of troponin I (3.9 ± 0.7). Conclusion: After LVAD, the increased risk of VAs is strongly associated with nonusage of β‐blocker postoperatively.     

Left ventricular assist devices in heart failure

End-stage heart failure is an ever-growing and devastating disease. The median survival for patients with heart failure on ionotropic support alone is a meager 6 months. Historically, the only option for these patients was to be listed for heart transplantation. Out of medical necessity, the idea of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as a bridge to transplantation was born. Since their approval by the US FDA, LVADs have quadrupled the survival in patients with heart failure. The increase in survival has also been accompanied by decreased perioperative morbidity, better biocompatibility and longer device life over first-generation LVADs. Undoubtedly, LVADs have changed the landscape of heart failure treatment and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. In this review, we will highlight the landmark studies that have established LVADs as a therapeutic option for heart failure, as well as reviewing the current LVADs available and speculating on the advancements that will be made in the upcoming years.     

Myocardial Irritation from a Left Ventricular Assist Device Resulting in Refractory Ventricular Tachycardia

Background

Due to an increasing prevalence of heart failure but a steady rate of heart transplantation, the number of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) implanted is growing. These patients present to emergency departments (EDs) with a variety of complications from their implanted device as well as their baseline cardiomyopathy. One-third of patients will present with a dysrhythmia, the most common of which is ventricular tachycardia.

A case of electromagnetic interference between HeartMate 3 LVAD and implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have been shown to have a significant benefit in reducing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with systolic heart failure. Additionally, cardiac devices as a bridge to transplant or destination therapy are often used in patients with end‐stage systolic heart failure. As a result, most patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) also have an ICD. Here, we present an electromagnetic interference (EMI) between HeartMate 3 LVAD and ICD. This issue might be critical for both electrophysiologists and advanced heart failure cardiologists to understand prior to implantation of ICD/LVADs in these patients.     

The Comprehensive Assessment of Left Ventricular Assist Devices by Echocardiography

Purpose of Review

Echocardiography is the imaging modality of choice for patient selection prior to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, assessment of device placement, optimization of device settings, diagnosis of device-related complications, and assessment of LV recovery. The key echocardiographic features of these devices will be highlighted in the following review.

Recent Findings

With increased utilization of LVADs as well as the development of centrifugal continuous-flow pumps, familiarity with echocardiographic imaging of LVADs is essential to optimal care of these complex patients.

Summary

All echocardiographic evaluations both before and after LVAD implantation should assess for biventricular function and cavity size, valvular function and pathology, intracardiac thrombi, intracardiac shunting, cannula position and flow, aortic pathology, and pericardial effusion. RAMP testing may be utilized when device complications are suspected.

     

The Effect of Preoperative Cognitive Behavior and Exercise Therapy for a Patient With an Implanted Left Ventricular Assist Device in Korea

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are used in patients with progressive heart failure symptoms to provide circulatory support. Patients with LVADs are referred to inpatient cardiac rehabilitation to prevent postoperative complications and improve aerobic capacity and quality of life. Preoperative exercise therapy for cardiac patients is an emerging treatment modality, and several studies have reported that it improves postoperative outcomes, such as length of hospital stay and postoperative complications. This case report describes the benefits of preoperative cognitive behavioral and exercise therapy in a Korean patient undergoing LVAD implantation.