4.6 Article

Pacemaker dependency after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the self-expanding Medtronic CoreValve System

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 168, 期 2, 页码 1269-1273

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.11.115

关键词

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation; Permanent pacemaker implantation; Dependency; Follow-up

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/objectives: To determine pacemaker (PM) dependency at follow-up visit in patients who underwent new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods: Single center prospective observational study including 167 patients without previous PM implantation who underwent TAVI with the self-expanding Medtronic CoreValve System (MCS) between November 2005 and February 2011. PM dependency was defined by the presence of a high degree atrioventricular block (HDAVB; second [AV2] and third degree [AV3B]), or a slow (<30 bpm) or absent ventricular escape rhythm during follow-up PM interrogation. Results: A total of 36 patients (21.6%) received a new PM following TAVI. The indication for PM was AV2B (n=2, 5.6%), AV3B (n=28, 77.8%), postoperative symptomatic bradycardia (n=3, 8.3%), brady-tachy syndrome (n=1, 2.8%), atrial fibrilation with slow response (n=1, 2.8%) and left bundle branch block (n=1, 2.8%). Long term follow-up was complete for all patients and ranged from 1 to 40 months (median (IQR): 11.5 (5.0-18.0 months). Of those patients with a HDAVB, 16 out of the 30 patients (53.3%) were PM independent at follow-up visit (complete or partial resolution of the AV conduction abnormality). Overall, 20 out of the 36 patients (55.6%) who received a new PM following TAVI were PM independent at follow-up. Conclusion: Partial and even complete resolution of peri-operative AV conduction abnormalities after MCS valve implantation occurred in more than half of the patients. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据