Conduction recovery and avoidance of permanent pacing after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. Currently, various prosthesis types are available. Atrioventricular block (AVB) requiring pacemaker (PM) implantation is a typical complication after TAVI. This study investigated the recovery of AV node conduction and mid-term outcome of patients with or without PM implantation after TAVI according to prosthesis type. From July 2008 to May 2015, 856 transcatheter heart valves were implanted at our center (age: 80.5±6.1 years; logistic EuroSCORE: 15.4%). These patients were followed up regularly in our outpatient clinic. PM implantation was performed in 16.9% of patients due to severe conduction disturbances, mainly third-degree AVB. The need for PM implantation differed between the various prosthesis types: Medtronic CoreValve (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA): 22.8% (n=272), Edwards Sapien XT (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA): 13.0% (n=262), Edwards Sapien 3 (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA): 16.2% (n=234), Direct Flow Medical (Direct Flow Medical, Santa Rosa, CA, USA): 7.3% (n=41), St. Jude Medical Portico (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA): 15.4% (n=26), Boston Scientific Lotus (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA): 21.4% (n=14) and Medtronic Evolut R (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA): 14.3% (n=7). Kaplan-Meier analysis for all-cause mortality did not reveal any differences between the various prosthesis types. PM implantation rates declined over the years of experience in a stable intervention team; 45% of PM patients showed sufficient AV node conduction after PM reprogramming at our follow-up examination. Mid-term all-cause survival after TAVI seems to be independent of prosthesis type and PM implantation after TAVI. Intrinsic AV node conduction recovers in a significant proportion of patients. Therefore, regular PM interrogations including reprogramming are required to avoid unnecessary permanent right ventricular stimulation.

Marzahn C ，Koban C ，Seifert M ，Isotani A ，Neuß M ，Hölschermann F ，Butter C ... -  《-》

Transcatheter Heart Valve Selection and Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients With Pre-Existent Right Bundle Branch Block.

Right bundle branch block is an established predictor for new conduction disturbances and need for a permanent pacemaker (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The aim of the study was to evaluate the absolute rates of transcatheter aortic valve replacement related PPM implantations in patients with pre-existent right bundle branch block and categorize for different transcatheter heart valves. We pooled data on 306 transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients from 4 high-volume centers in Europe and selected those with right bundle branch block at baseline without a previously implanted PPM. Logistic regression was used to evaluate whether PPM rate differed among transcatheter heart valves after adjustment for confounders. Mean age was 83±7 years and 63% were male. Median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 6.3 (interquartile range, 4.1-10.2). The following transcatheter valve designs were used: Medtronic CoreValve (n=130; Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN); Edwards Sapien XT (ES-XT; n=124) and Edwards Sapien 3 (ES-3; n=32; Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA); and Boston Scientific Lotus (n=20; Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, MA). Overall permanent pacemaker implantation rate post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement was 41%, and per valve design: 75% with Lotus, 46% with CoreValve, 32% with ES-XT, and 34% with ES-3. The indication for PPM implantation was total atrioventricular block in 98% of the cases. Lotus was associated with a higher PPM rate than all other valves. PPM rate did not differ between ES-XT and ES-3. Ventricular paced rhythm at 30-day and 1-year follow-up was present in 81% at 89%, respectively. Right bundle branch block at baseline is associated with a high incidence of PPM implantation for all transcatheter heart valves. PPM rate was highest for Lotus and lowest for ES-XT and ES-3. Pacemaker dependency remained high during follow-up.

van Gils L ，Tchetche D ，Lhermusier T ，Abawi M ，Dumonteil N ，Rodriguez Olivares R ，Molina-Martin de Nicolas J ，Stella PR ，Carrié D ，De Jaegere PP ，Van Mieghem NM ... -  《Journal of the American Heart Association》

Short-term pacemaker dependency after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Schernthaner C ，Kraus J ，Danmayr F ，Hammerer M ，Schneider J ，Hoppe UC ，Strohmer B ... -  《-》

Pacemaker implantation and need for ventricular pacing during follow-up after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

To categorize indications of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), to determine predictors for conduction disturbances and to quantify the need for ventricular pacing during follow-up. We studied 97 patients (median age 83 years, 58% female) undergoing TAVI using the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving System (MCRS; Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) or Edwards-Sapien Valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA). During follow-up, no need for ventricular pacing was defined as <1% ventricular pacing and intrinsic 1:1 atrioventricular (AV) conduction. In the 35 patients (36.1%) undergoing PPM implantation three indication categories were identified: (1) high-grade AV block (Mobitz 2 or higher), (2) new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) with a prolonged PR interval, and (3) new-onset LBBB. The only independent predictors of high-grade AV block were the use of MCRS (odds ratio [OR] 79.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.57-1373.31) and the presence of preprocedural right bundle branch block (OR 81.95; 95% 95% CI 8.72-770.46). Whereas high-grade AV block resolved only in 17% of cases, none of the patients receiving a PPM due to LBBB with or without PR prolongation required ventricular pacing during follow-up. Our findings justify early PPM implantation in patients with high-grade AV block and may suggest a more conservative approach to PPM implantation in patients with new-onset LBBB after TAVI.

Ramazzina C ，Knecht S ，Jeger R ，Kaiser C ，Schaer B ，Osswald S ，Sticherling C ，Kühne M ... -  《-》

Predictors for new-onset complete heart block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for new-onset atrioventricular (AV) block requiring pacemaker (PM) implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). High-grade AV block and consecutive PM implantation are frequent complications following TAVI. For logistic regression analysis, we included 159 patients (mean age: 81 +/- 6 years, EuroSCORE: 22 +/- 13%) who underwent TAVI (n = 116 transfemoral, n = 4 via subclavian artery, n = 37 transapical, n = 2 transaortic) between June 2007 and January 2009 and who had no previously implanted PM. Thirty-five patients (22%) developed new-onset post-operative AV block with the need of PM implantation. Logistic regression revealed a 2-fold increased risk for new-onset AV block in patients in whom a large valve is implanted in a small annulus (32% pacemaker implantations, odds ratio [OR]: 2.378, p = NS), a 4-fold increased risk with the implantation of the CoreValve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) versus the Edwards Sapien valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) (27% pacemaker implantations, OR: 3.781, p = NS), and a 5-fold increased risk for patients who exhibit an AV block episode instantly during the implantation procedure (49% pacemaker implantations, OR: 4.819, p = 0.001). Pre-existing ECG alterations were not identified as risk factors for AV block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. We assume that conduction tissue impairment is provoked by mechanical compression with large prostheses in smaller annuli or in the larger area of the CoreValve covering the outflow tract and may appear instantly during the implantation procedure. Continuous post-operative electrocardiogram monitoring should be performed for at least 3 days in all patients after TAVI procedures and until discharge in patients with increased risk for this complication.

Bleiziffer S ，Ruge H ，Hörer J ，Hutter A ，Geisbüsch S ，Brockmann G ，Mazzitelli D ，Bauernschmitt R ，Lange R ... -  《-》