Incidence, indications and predicting factors of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A retrospective study

Modifiable risk factors for permanent pacemaker after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: CONDUCT registry

OBJECTIVE

The onset of new conduction abnormalities requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is still a relevant adverse event. The main objective of this registry was to identify modifiable procedural risk factors for an improved outcome (lower rate of PPI) after TAVI in patients at high risk of PPI.

METHODS

Patients from four European centres receiving a balloon-expandable TAVI (Edwards SAPIEN 3/3 Ultra) and considered at high risk of PPI (pre-existing conduction disturbance, heavily calcified left ventricular outflow tract or short membranous septum) were prospectively enrolled into registry.

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients were included: 42 (14.0%) required PPI after TAVI and 258 (86.0%) did not. Patients with PPI had a longer intensive care unit plus intermediate care stay (65.7 vs 16.3 hours, p<0.001), general ward care stay (6.9 vs 5.3 days, p=0.004) and later discharge (8.6 vs 5.0 days, p<0.001). Of the baseline variables, only pre-existing right bundle branch block at baseline (OR 6.8, 95% CI 2.5 to 18.1) was significantly associated with PPI in the multivariable analysis. Among procedure-related variables, oversizing had the highest impact on the rate of PPI: higher than manufacturer-recommended sizing, mean area oversizing as well as the use of the 29 mm valve (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.4 to 8.5, p=0.008) all were significantly associated with PPI. Rates were higher with the SAPIEN 3 (16.1%) vs SAPIEN 3 Ultra (8.5%), although not statistically significant but potentially associated with valve sizing. Implantation depth and postdelivery balloon dilatation also tended to affect PPI rates but without a statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Valve oversizing is a strong procedure-related risk factor for PPI following TAVI. The clinical impact of the valve type (SAPIEN 3), implantation depth, and postdelivery balloon dilatation did not reach significance and may reflect already refined procedures in the participating centres, giving attention to these avoidable risk factors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03497611.

Site-Level Variation and Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following TAVR in the Evolut Low-Risk Trial

We evaluated predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), examined site-to-site variability of PPI rates, and explored the relationship of implantation methods on the need for PPI. Despite the benefits of TAVR compared to surgical aortic valve replacement, increased PPI remains a limitation. A total of 699 patients without baseline PPI were included in the study. Clinical, echocardiographic, and procedural characteristics were compared in patient with and without new PPI. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 30 days and 1 year. Funnel plots were constructed to display site-to- site variability and identify outliers in PPI. Clinical outcomes were similar in patients with and without PPI. Predictors of a new PPI within 7 days included a baseline right bundle branch block (p < 0.001) and not using general anesthesia (p = 0.003). There was substantial site to site variability in the rate of PPI. Patients at sites with a lower PPI rate had shallower implantation depth at the non-coronary (p < 0.001) and the left coronary sinus (p < 0.001), and fewer patients with an implantation depth > 5 mm below the annulus (p = 0.004). In low-risk patients undergoing TAVR with Evolut valves, baseline conduction disorders and implant depth were important predictors of PPI. Implantation method may have contributed to this variability in PPI rates across clinical sites.

The conjunction conundrum in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

A continuous discussion regarding the predictors for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is ongoing, especially in the era of low and medium risk patients. The aim of this article is to review the data so far regarding the pathophysiology, risk factors, and the indications for permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVI. The factors that contribute to rhythm abnormalities post TAVI can be divided into pre-existing conduction abnormalities, patient-related anatomical factors, and peri-procedural technical factors. The latter components are potentially modifiable, and this is where attention should be directed, particularly now that in an era of TAVI expansion towards lower-risk patients.

Predictors for the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a less invasive treatment than surgery for severe aortic stenosis. However, its use is restricted by the fact that many patients eventually require permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI). This meta-analysis was performed to identify predictors of post-TAVR PPMI.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched. Relevant studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the pooling analysis after quality assessment.

RESULTS

After pooling 67 studies on post-TAVR PPMI risk in 97,294 patients, balloon-expandable valve use was negatively correlated with PPMI risk compared with self-expandable valve (SEV) use (odds ratio [OR]: 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-0.53). Meta-regression analysis revealed that history of coronary artery bypass grafting and higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score increased the risk of PPMI with SEV utilization. Patients with pre-existing cardiac conduction abnormalities in 28 pooled studies also had a higher risk of PPMI (OR: 2.33, 95% CI: 1.90-2.86). Right bundle branch block (OR: 5.2, 95% CI: 4.37-6.18) and first-degree atrioventricular block (OR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.38-2.79) also increased PPMI risk. Although the trans-femoral approach was positively correlated with PPMI risk, the trans-apical pathway showed no statistical difference to the trans-femoral pathway. The approach did not increase PPMI risk in patients with STS scores >8. Patient-prosthesis mismatch did not influence post-TAVR PPMI risk (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.67-1.16). We also analyzed implantation depth and found no difference between patients with PPMI after TAVR and those without.

CONCLUSIONS

SEV selection, pre-existing cardiac conduction abnormality, and trans-femoral pathway selection are positively correlated with PPMI after TAVR. Pre-existing left bundle branch block, patient-prosthesis mismatch, and implantation depth did not affect the risk of PPMI after TAVR.

Are Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valves a Serious Alternative to TA-TAVI? A Matched-Pairs Analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a feasible alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement with expanding indication extending to low-risk patients. Sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valves were developed to decrease procedural risks in conventional treatment. This paired-match analysis aims to compare patients undergoing surgical transcatheter aortic valve implantation to sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation.

METHODS

Retrospective database analysis between 2010 and 2016 revealed 214 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures through surgical access (predominantly transapical) and 62 sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve procedures including 26 patients in need of concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery. After matching, 52 pairs of patients were included and analyzed.

RESULTS

In-hospital death (5.8% vs. 3.8%; p = 0.308) was comparable between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (mean age 77 ± 4.3 years) and sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation groups (mean age 75 ± 4.0 years), including 32 females in each group. The logistic EuroSCORE was similar (19 ± 12 vs. 17 ± 10; p = 0.257). Postoperative renal failure (p = 0.087) and cerebrovascular accidents (p = 0.315) were without significant difference. The incidence of complete heart block requiring permanent pacemaker treatment was relatively low for both groups (1.9% vs. 7.7%; p = 0.169) for TAVI and sutureless and rapid-deployment valves respectively. Intraoperative use of blood transfusion was higher in the sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation group (0.72 U vs. 1.46 U, p = 0.014). Estimated survival calculated no significant difference between both groups after 6 months (transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 74 ± 8% vs. sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation: 92 ± 5%; log rank p = 0.097).

CONCLUSION

Since sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation is as safe and effective as transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation, combining the advantage of standard diseased-valve removal with shorter procedural times, sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement may be considered as an alternative for patients with elevated operative risk considered to be in the "gray zone" between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and conventional surgery, especially if concomitant myocardial revascularization is required.

Predictors of pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation according to kind of prosthesis and risk profile: a systematic review and contemporary meta-analysis

AIMS

Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) may be required after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Evidence on PPI prediction has largely been gathered from high-risk patients receiving first-generation valve implants. We undertook a meta-analysis of the existing literature to examine the incidence and predictors of PPI after TAVI according to generation of valve, valve type, and surgical risk.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We made a systematic literature search for studies with ≥100 patients reporting the incidence and adjusted predictors of PPI after TAVI. Subgroup analyses examined these features according to generation of valve, specific valve type, and surgical risk. We obtained data from 43 studies, encompassing 29 113 patients. Permanent pacemaker implantation rates ranged from 6.7% to 39.2% in individual studies with a pooled incidence of 19% (95% CI 16-21). Independent predictors for PPI were age [odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.09], left bundle branch block (LBBB) (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.12-1.77), right bundle branch block (RBBB) (OR 4.15, 95% CI 3.23-4.88), implantation depth (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.11-1.26), and self-expanding valve prosthesis (OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.39-4.59). Among subgroups analysed according to valve type, valve generation and surgical risk, independent predictors were RBBB, self-expanding valve type, first-degree atrioventricular block, and implantation depth.

CONCLUSIONS

The principle independent predictors for PPI following TAVI are age, RBBB, LBBB, self-expanding valve type, and valve implantation depth. These characteristics should be taken into account in pre-procedural assessment to reduce PPI rates. PROSPERO ID CRD42020164043.

Electrocardiographic and clinical predictors for permanent pacemaker requirement after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a 10-year single center experience

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to identify clinical, electrocardiographic (ECG) and procedural predictors for permanent pacemaker (PPM) requirement after transaortic valve implantation (TAVI).

METHODS

All consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (SSAS) undergoing TAVI at our single center were included in the study and prospectively followed. All patients had standard 12-leads ECGs recordings before and after TAVI and continuous ECG monitoring during hospital stay. Primary endpoint was to identify electrocardiographic predictors of PPM implantation after TAVI; secondary endpoint was to ascertain other clinical or procedure-related predictive factors of PPM need. PPM implantation was further arbitrarily divided into early and late one (beyond the 3^rd day).

RESULTS

Among the 431 patients undergoing TAVI between 2008 and 2018, 77 (18%) needed PPM implantation; 47 (11%) had an early procedure, and 30 (7%) a late implant. Preoperative right bundle branch block (RBBB) implies more than five-fold increase of the risk of PPM implantation (OR 5.19, CI 1.99-13.56, P=0.001), whereas the use of a self-expandable prosthesis is associated with an almost three-fold increase of the risk (OR 2.60, CI 1.28-5.28, P=0.008). In the late PPM implantation subgroup, only the history of syncope retains a significant association with such an increased risk (OR 2.71, CI 1.09-6.75, P=0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

The need of a PPM in the individual TAVI patient is hardly predictable. However, the finding of pre-existing RBBB, the use of self-expandable prosthesis and history of syncope can individuate patients at increased risk.

Update in Heart Rhythm Abnormalities and Indications for Pacemaker After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Objective: Rhythm abnormalities following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and indications for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) were reviewed, which aren't well established in the current guidelines. New left bundle branch block and atrioventricular block are the most common electrocardiographic changes after TAVI. PPI incidence ranges from 9-42% for self-expandable and 2.5-11.5% for balloon expandable devices. Not only anatomical variations in conduction system have an important role in conduction disorders, but different valve characteristics and their relationship with cardiac structures as well. Previous right bundle branch block has been confirmed as one of the most significant predictors for PPI.

Prospective multicentre evaluation of a novel, low-profile transapical delivery system for self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 6-month outcomes

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the safety and efficacy of a novel low-profile, 22-Fr transapical delivery system together with the ACURATE neo™ resheathable transcatheter heart valve.

METHODS

This prospective, single-arm, multicentre study enrolled 60 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and high surgical risk ineligible for transfemoral access. Primary end points were 6-month mortality and procedural success.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 79.8 ± 4.7 years, and the patients had severe comorbidities including coronary artery disease (71.7%), diabetes (38.3%), atrial fibrillation (30.0%) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (21.7%); logistic EuroSCORE-I, -II and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) scores were 20.9 ± 8.9%, 6.1 ± 5.0% and 4.3 ± 2.9%, respectively. A non-rib spreading approach using soft tissue retractors only was used in 88.3% of patients (n = 53). Resheathing and repositioning of transcatheter heart valve were performed in 6.7% of cases (n = 4); the device implantation time was 3 ± 2 min. Apical access site complications occurred in 1.7% (n = 1). Procedural success was 98.3% (n = 59), and procedural success in the absence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 30 days was 90.0% (n = 54). At 30 days, cardiovascular and overall mortality were 8.3% (n = 5), stroke rate was 1.7% (n = 1), and 17.2% of patients (n = 10) received a permanent pacemaker implant. No paravalvular leakage ≥2+ was observed, and the mean transvalvular gradient was 5.9 ± 2.7 mmHg. At 6 months, survival was 84.3% with sustained haemodynamic results.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates safety and efficacy of transapical aortic valve implantation using a novel low-profile delivery system. High procedural success, short implantation times and a low rate of apical access site complications underline the favourable safety profile and ease of use.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02950428.