Validation of the VT-LVAD score for prediction of late VAs in LVAD recipients.
ICD
LVAD
late ventricular arrhythmia
mortality
risk stratification
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
ISSN: 1540-8167
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010756
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2021
02 2021
Historique:
received:
21
09
2020
revised:
12
11
2020
accepted:
25
11
2020
pubmed:
4
12
2020
medline:
10
8
2021
entrez:
3
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study sought to validate the performance of the VT-LVAD risk model in predicting late ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in patients after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The need for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)-implantation in LVAD recipients is not well studied. A better selection of the patients with high risk for late VAs could lead to a more targeted ICD-implantation or replacement. The study evaluated the performance of the VT-LVAD prognostic score (VAs prior LVAD, no ACE-inhibitor in medication, heart failure duration > 12 months, early VAs post-LVAD implantation, atrial fibrillation prior LVAD, idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy) for the endpoint of the occurrence of late VAs in 357 LVAD patients in Heart Centre of Leipzig. From the initial 460 patients, 357 (age: 58 ± 10 years; left ventricular ejection fraction: 20 ± 6%; HeartWare: 50%; HeartMate III: 42%) were assigned to four risk groups according to their VT-LVAD score varying from low risk to very high risk. After 25 months, late VAs occurred in 130 patients. The VT-LVAD score was an independent predictor of late VAs (multivariate analysis; p = < .001; goodness-of-tip p = .347; odds ratio: 4.8). While there was no statistically significant difference between the low- and intermediate-risk group, risk stratification for patients with high risk and very high risk performed more accurately (pairwise comparison p = .005 and p < .001, respectively). The VT-LVAD score predicted accurately the occurrence of late VAs in high-risk LVAD recipients in a large external cohort of LVAD recipients supporting its utility for more targeted ICD implantations.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVES
This study sought to validate the performance of the VT-LVAD risk model in predicting late ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in patients after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.
BACKGROUND
The need for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)-implantation in LVAD recipients is not well studied. A better selection of the patients with high risk for late VAs could lead to a more targeted ICD-implantation or replacement.
METHODS
The study evaluated the performance of the VT-LVAD prognostic score (VAs prior LVAD, no ACE-inhibitor in medication, heart failure duration > 12 months, early VAs post-LVAD implantation, atrial fibrillation prior LVAD, idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy) for the endpoint of the occurrence of late VAs in 357 LVAD patients in Heart Centre of Leipzig.
RESULTS
From the initial 460 patients, 357 (age: 58 ± 10 years; left ventricular ejection fraction: 20 ± 6%; HeartWare: 50%; HeartMate III: 42%) were assigned to four risk groups according to their VT-LVAD score varying from low risk to very high risk. After 25 months, late VAs occurred in 130 patients. The VT-LVAD score was an independent predictor of late VAs (multivariate analysis; p = < .001; goodness-of-tip p = .347; odds ratio: 4.8). While there was no statistically significant difference between the low- and intermediate-risk group, risk stratification for patients with high risk and very high risk performed more accurately (pairwise comparison p = .005 and p < .001, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
The VT-LVAD score predicted accurately the occurrence of late VAs in high-risk LVAD recipients in a large external cohort of LVAD recipients supporting its utility for more targeted ICD implantations.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
515-522Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Galand V, Flécher E, Auffret V, et al. Predictors and clinical impact of late ventricular arrhythmias in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;4(9):1166-1175.
Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Pagani FD, et al. Seventh INTERMACS annual report: 15,000 patients and counting. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015;34(12):1495-1504.
Pagani F, Miller L, Russel S, et al. Extended mechanical circulatory support with a continuous-flow rotary left ventricular assist device. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(4):312-321.
Desai AS, Fang JC, Maisel WH, Baughman KL. Implantable defibrillators for the prevention of mortality in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2004;292:2874-2879.
Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, et al. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:877-883.
Bedi M, Kormos R, Winowich S, McNamara DM, Mathier MA, Murali S. Ventricular arrhythmias during left ventricular assist device support. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:1151-1153.
Garan AR, Yuzefpolskaya M, Colombo PC, et al. Ventricular arrhythmias and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: need for primary prevention? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:2542-2550.
Boulet J, Massie E, Mondésert B, Lamarche Y, Carrier M, Ducharme A. Current review of implantable cardioverter defibrillator use in patients with left ventricular assist device. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2019;16:229-239.
Oswald H, Schultz-Wildelau C, Gardiwal A, et al. Implantable defibrillator therapy for ventricular tachyarrhythmia in left ventricular assist device patients. Eur J Heart Fail. 2010;12:593-599.
Vakil K, Kazmirczak F, Sathnur N, et al. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator use in patients with left ventricular assist devices: A systematic review and metanalysis. JACC Heart Fail. 2016;4(10):772-779.
Tattevin P, Flécher E, Auffret V, et al. Risk factors and prognostic impact of left ventricular assist device-associated infections. Am Heart J. 2019;214:69-76.
Kadado AJ, Akar JG, Hummel JP. Arrhythmias after left ventricular assist device implantation: incidence and management. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2018;28(1):41-50.
Harding JD, Piacentino V 3rd, Rothman S, Chambers S, Jessup M, Margulies KB. Prolonged repolarization after ventricular assist device support is associated with arrhythmias in humans with congestive heart failure. J Card Fail. 2005;11(3):227-232.
Griffin JM, Katz JN. The burden of ventricular arrhythmias following left ventricular assist device implantation. Arrhythmia Electrophysiol Rev. 2014;3(3):145-148.
Fitzgibbon J, Kman NE, Gorgas D. Asymptomatic sustained polymorphic ventricular tachycardia in a patient with a left ventricular assist device: case report and what the emergency physician should know. J Emerg Med. 2016;50(3):e135-e141.
Sims DB, Rosner G, Uriel N, González-Costello J, Ehlert FA, Jorde UP. Twelve hours of sustained ventricular fibrillation supported by a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2012;35(5):e144-e148.
Oz MC, Rose EA, Slater J, Kuiper JJ, Catanese KA, Levin HR. Malignant ventricular arrhythmias are well tolerated in patients receiving long-term left ventricular assist devices. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;24(7):1688-1691.
Jackson GR, Katz JN. Beyond mortality-Significant morbidity and function decline follows left ventricular assist device exchange. J Card Fail. 2018;24(8):S108.