ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2023
Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator noise following left ventricular assist device implantation.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ventricular Arrhythmias in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients-Current Diagnostic and Therapeutic Considerations.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator noise following left ventricular assist device implantation.Journal of arrhythmia · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The incidence and impact of noise in a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is not well established. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients implanted with LVAD and with a pre-existing S-ICD between January 2005 and December 2020 at the three Mayo Clinic centers (Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida). Results: Of the 908 LVAD patients, a pre-existing S-ICD was present in 9 patients (mean age 49.1 ± 13.7 years, 66.7% males), 100% with Boston Scientific third-generation EMBLEM MRI S-ICD, 11% with HeartMate II (HM II), 44% with HeartMate 3 (HM 3), and 44% with HeartWare (HW) LVAD. The incidence of noise from LVAD-related electromagnetic interference (EMI) was 33% and was only seen with HM 3 LVAD. Multiple measures attempted to resolve noise, including using alternative S-ICD sensing vector, adjusting S-ICD time zone, and increasing LVAD pump speed, were unsuccessful, necessitating S-ICD device therapies to be turned off permanently. Conclusions: The incidence of LVAD-related S-ICD noise is high in patients with concomitant LVAD and S-ICD with significant impact on device function. As conservative management failed to resolve the EMI, the S-ICDs had to be programmed off to avoid inappropriate shocks. This study highlights the importance of awareness of LVAD-SICD device interference and the need to improve S-ICD detection algorithms to eliminate noise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.