Drug therapy and catheter ablation for management of arrhythmias in continuous flow left ventricular assist device’s patients: a Clinical Consensus Statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Failure Association of the ESC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly used strategy for the management of patients with advanced heart failure. Although these devices effectively improve survival, atrial and ventricular arrhythmias are common with a prevalence of 20-50% at one year after LVAD implantation. Arrhythmias predispose these patients to additional risk and are associated with considerable morbidity from recurrent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks, progressive failure of the unsupported right ventricle, and herald an increased risk of mortality. Management of patients with arrhythmias and LVAD differs in many aspects from the general population heart failure patients. These include ruling out the reversible causes of arrhythmias that in LVAD patients may include mechanical irritation from the inflow cannula and suction events. For patients with symptomatic arrhythmias refractory to medical treatment, catheter ablation might be relevant. There are specific technical and procedural challenges perceived to be unique to LVAD-related ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation such as vascular and LV access, signal filtering, catheter manoeuvrability within decompressed chambers, and electroanatomic mapping system interference. In some patients, the arrhythmogenic substrate might not be readily accessible by catheter ablation after LVAD implantation. In this regard, the peri-implantation period offers a unique opportunity to surgically address arrhythmogenic substrate and suppress future VT recurrences. This document aims to address specific aspects of the management of arrhythmias in LVAD patients focusing on anti-arrhythmic drug therapy and ablations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".