Journal
PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 37, Issue 12, Pages 1592-1601Publisher
WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pace.12505
Keywords
pacing; electrophysiology - clinical; TAVI
Funding
- Medtronic
- Boston Scientific
- Biotronik
- St. Jude Medical
- Biosense Webster
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Background: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. Method: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. Results: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. Conclusion: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.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available