4.4 Article

Predictive factors for pacemaker requirement after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Journal

BMC CARDIOVASCULAR DISORDERS
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2261-12-87

Keywords

TAVI; AV block; Left bundle branch block; Pacemaker; His bundle

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been established as a treatment option for inoperable patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. However, patients suffer frequently from conduction disturbances after TAVI. Methods: Baseline, procedural as well as surface and intracardiac ECG parameters were evaluated for patients treated with TAVI and a comparison between patients requiring pacemaker with those not suffering from relevant conduction disorders were done. Results: TAVI was successfully in all patients (n=45). Baseline surface and intracardiac ECG recording revealed longer PQ (197.1 +/- 51.2 msec versus 154.1 +/- 32.1 msec; p<0.001), longer AH (153.6 +/- 43.4 msec versus 116.1 +/- 31.2 msec; p<0.001) and HV interval (81.7 +/- 17.8 msec versus 56.8 +/- 8.5 msec; p<0.001) in patients with need for a pacemaker (n=23) versus control group (n=22); furthermore, 7-day follow-up analysis showed a higher prevalence of new left bundle branch block (LBBB) (87.0% versus 31.9%; p<0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that only new LBBB, QRS duration >120 msec and a PQ interval >200 msec immediately (within 60 minutes) after implantation of the aortic valve were predictors for high-grade (type II second-degree and third-degree) AV block. Other clinical parameters as well as baseline electrocardiographic parameters had no impact on critical conduction delay. Conclusion: Cardiac conduction disturbances are common after TAVI. The need for pacing after TAVI is predictable by surface ECG evaluation immediately (within 60 minutes) after the procedure.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available