Conduction disturbances after TAVR: rates of pacemaker implantation, burden of ventricular pacing and prognostic significance

Autor: S Bricoli, Luca Rossi, A Crocamo, L Vignali, Marco Zardini, MF Notarangelo, A Placci, Nicola Bottoni, V Guiducci, L Losi, G Gonzi, A Biagi, G Benatti, I Tadonio
Rok vydání: 2021
Předmět:
Zdroj: EP Europace. 23
ISSN: 1532-2092
1099-5129
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euab116.382
Popis: Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. BACKGROUND The occurrence of conduction disturbances remains frequent after TAVR. However, the effect of PM on mortality is controversial and many patients may recover spontaneous AV conduction during follow-up. PURPOSE To evaluate the incidence of PM implantation after TAVR, PM dependency and burden of ventricular pacing during follow-up and their influence on mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS We performed a retrospective analysis of all consecutive 293 patients who underwent TAVR from 2015 to 2019 at our hospital, regional hub for this procedure. Patients were classified into 3 groups: patients without PM (no-PM), patients with a PM implanted prior to TAVR (pre-PM) and patients requiring a PM following TAVR (post-PM) and their clinical and procedural characteristics are listed in Table 1. The rate of PM implantation after TAVR was 20,8%, at a median of 3.6 days after the procedure. The most common indication was complete AV block. A VVIR pacemaker was implanted in 28 patients, a DDD/DDDR PM in 27 patients and 2 patients received a CRT device. Among post-PPM patients, only 16% were PM-dependent at 2-month and 1-year follow-up. All of them received a PM for complete AV block (AVB). At 1-year follow-up, RV pacing burden was 60% among AVB patients and 23% in patients with a PM implanted for other reasons. PM implantation after TAVR was not associated with a mortality difference at 30-day, 1-year and long-term follow-up. Pre-PPM patients showed a higher mortality rate at long-term follow-up although not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS Our data suggest that a single chamber device should be preferred in patients implanted for reasons other than complete AVB; in patients with AVB, the use of dual chamber device with an algorithm to minimize RV pacing should be the most suitable choice. Overall (293)No PPM (216)Pre-PPM (19)Post-PPM (57)p-valueAge, median(IQR)82(80-86)82(80-86)82(79-87)82(80-86)0,53Female, n(%)160(55)129(59)6(32)25(44)0,40NYHA III-IV, n(%)191(65)147(68)15(79)29(51)0,06Logistic Euroscore, mean (IQR)7,53(3,5-8,3)7(3,5-8)9,83(3,6-12)6(3,5-7,4)0,51Right bundle-branch block, n(%)21(7)13(6)na8(14)0,04AVA, mean ± SD0,69 ± 0,190,7 ± 0,190,7 ± 0,160,66 ± 0,180,23Self-expandable valve, n(%)181(62)123(57)12(63)46(81)0,001Balloon-expandable valve, n(%)102(35)86(40)7(37)8(14)0,0003Implant depth, mean ± SD6,87 ± 2,96,32 ± 2,65,71 ± 39,12 ± 30,0001Abstract Figure. Kaplan-Meier survival curve
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: