ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Role of implantable loop recorders in optimizing care for patients during and after left ventricular assist device support: a single centre experience.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeft ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly used in heart failure patients. Arrhythmias are common in those patients, including patients with LVADs, and the interplay between electrical activity and LVAD-related hemodynamic changes is critical for managing complications. While preexisting cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) can aid in monitoring, they are not always present, and the role of de novo implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in LVAD patients remains debated. Implantable loop recorders (ILRs) may offer a solution by enabling continuous monitoring and guiding management adjustments. This study assessed the outcomes of ILR use in LVAD patients at single tertiary centre
methodsWe reviewed our cohort of LVAD patients with emphasis on those with ILR; indication, timing of implantation, interrogation data and management.
resultsOut of 76 LVAD patients, 8 patients got an ILR. Average age at time of LVAD implantation was 24.3 years. Average time of LVAD support was 41.3 month, all with Continuous flow-LVADs. Indications for ILR implantation were frequent palpitation in five patients. In remaining three, it was indicated to exclude arrythmia as an aetiology for low flow state alarms. Average sensed R wave voltage was 0.3 mv, no noise or artifacts were detected. In 3 patients, intermittent high grade AV block was detected, so we stopped their beta-blockers and implanted a pacemaker in one of them. Atrial fibrillation (AF) was found in 3 patients. In one of them, this was after LVAD removal, so we got patient back on anticoagulation. Ventricular arrythmias were found in 2 patients, one with Premature Ventricular Contractions (PVCs), and the other had symptomatic sustained VT episodes that required amiodarone therapy. No arrhythmia related mortality occurred in the cohort.
conclusionsWith increasing cohort of LVAD patients worldwide, there is no consensus about device therapy post LVAD with individualized approaches for patients' assessment. ILR can be an excellent tool to monitor them. Moreover, in recovered patients, ILRs may help to diagnose arrythmias that could need intervention as AF and VT related to implantation site. In contrast to the reports about potential artifacts due to magnetic interference, no noise or artifacts were detected in our cohort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.