Prognostic impact of new permanent pacemaker implantation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement
- PMID: 37493466
- DOI: 10.1002/ccd.30788
Prognostic impact of new permanent pacemaker implantation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Abstract
Background: Conduction disturbances requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) are common following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). There were conflicting data regarding the impact of new PPI on clinical outcomes after TAVR.
Objectives: The study sought to evaluate the impact of new PPI on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR.
Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Data were from 210 consecutive patients without prior PPI who underwent TAVR due to severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at our center between June 2018 and July 2020. Clinical, echocardiographic, and pacing data were assessed at 30-day, 1- and 2-year follow-up.
Results: New PPI was required in 35 (16.7%) patients within 30 days after TAVR. The median time from TAVR to PPI was 3 days. The most common indication for PPI was high-degree or complete atrioventricular block. The median follow-up was 798.0 (interquartile range, 669.0-1115.0) days. There were no differences in all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-2.36; p = 0.415) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.57-1.89; p = 0.609) between groups. However, PPI group had a higher risk of heart failure (HF) rehospitalization (adjusted HR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.26-2.28; p = 0.027). Echocardiography showed no significant improvement of LVEF over time in patients with PPI. At the latest follow-up, 31.3% of patients exhibited low (≤10%) pacing burdens, whereas 28.1% of patients had near constant (>90%) right ventricular pacing.
Conclusions: New PPI within 30 days following TAVR was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. However, patients with PPI had a higher risk of HF rehospitalization and lack of LVEF improvement.
Keywords: aortic stenosis; conduction disturbances; permanent pacemaker implantation; transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021;143(5):e35-e71.
-
- Kroon HG, van Gils L, Ziviello F, et al. Impact of baseline and newly acquired conduction disorders on need for permanent pacemakers with 3 consecutive generations of self-expanding transcatheter aortic heart valves. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2022;34:40-45.
-
- Mahajan S, Gupta R, Malik AH, et al. Predictors of permanent pacemaker insertion after TAVR: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2021;32(5):1411-1420.
-
- Pujol-López M, Jiménez Arjona R, Guasch E, et al. Conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing in patients with ventricular dysfunction and AV block. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2022;45(9):1115-1123.
-
- Parsova KE, Hayiroglu MI, Pay L, Cinier G, Gurkan K. Long-term follow-up of patients with drug-related atrioventricular block without a need of permanent pacemaker during index hospitalization. Egypt Heart J. 2022;74(1):56.
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous