4.6 Article

Need for pacemaker implantation in patients with normal QRS duration immediately after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Journal

EUROPACE
Volume 21, Issue 12, Pages 1851-1856

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euz261

Keywords

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation; Pacemaker implantation; QRS duration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims We sought to assess the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) in patients with QRS <120 ms in electrocardiogram (ECG) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods and results We retrospectively analysed 1139 consecutive patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI between 2008 and 2016, receiving different valve types. All patients were surveyed by continuous ECG monitoring for 48 h, 12-lead ECGs starting immediately after procedure, as well as 24-h Holter recording the day before discharge. Indication for PPI was at the discretion of the attending physician. Among 760 patients with QRS <120 ms prior to the TAVI procedure, 400 patients showed QRS <120 ms immediately after procedure, whereas 360 patients had QRS >= 120 ms. In the group with QRS <120 ms, PPI was performed in 34 patients [8.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.6-11.2%] during the first week. Eight of the PPIs in the group with QRS <120 ms (2%; CI 0.8-3.5%) fulfilled Class I indications for PPI after TAVI, whereas 26 PPIs had different indications [left bundle branch block, sick sinus, low-grade atrioventricular (AV) block]. Complete AV block developed in three patients of the group of QRS <120 ms (0.75%; CI 0.0-1.7%), which in all cases occurred after the 48 h-surveillance period. During 1-year follow-up, 11 PPIs were performed (2.8%; CI 1.2-4.5%), thereof three PPI for Class I indications including one complete AV block. Conclusion In patients with QRS duration <120 ms immediately after TAVI, the risk for complete AV block was low during the first week after TAVI and 1-year follow-up.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available