Search

Objectives: To study the safety and feasibility of a restrictive temporary-RV-pacemaker use and to evaluate the need for temporary pacemaker insertion for failed left ventricular (LV) pacing ability (no ventricular capture) or occurrence of high-degree AV-blocks mandating continuous pacing., Background: Ventricular pacing remains an essential part of contemporary transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). A temporary-right-ventricle (RV)-pacemaker lead is the standard approach for transient pacing during TAVI but requires central venous access., Methods: An observational registry including 672 patients who underwent TAVI between June 2018 and December 2020. Patients received pacing on the wire when necessary, unless there was a high-anticipated risk for conduction disturbances post-TAVI, based on the baseline-ECG. The follow-up period was 30 days., Results: A temporary-RV-pacemaker lead (RVP-cohort) was inserted in 45 patients, pacing on the wire (LVP-cohort) in 488 patients, and no pacing (NoP-cohort) in 139 patients. A bailout temporary pacemaker was implanted in 14 patients (10.1%) in the NoP-cohort and in 24 patients (4.9%) in the LVP-cohort. One patient in the LVP-cohort needed an RV-pacemaker for incomplete ventricular capture. Procedure time was significantly longer in the RVP-cohort (68 min [IQR 52-88.] vs. 55 min [IQR 44-72] in NoP-cohort and 55 min [IQR 43-71] in the LVP-cohort [p < 0.005]). Procedural high-degree AV-block occurred most often in the RVP-cohort (45% vs. 14% in the LVP and 16% in the NoP-cohort [p ≤ 0.001]). Need for new PPI occurred in 47% in the RVP-cohort, versus 20% in the NoP-cohort and 11% in the LVP-cohort (p ≤ 0.001)., Conclusion: A restricted RV-pacemaker strategy is safe and shortens procedure time. The majority of TAVI-procedures do not require a temporary-RV-pacemaker., (© 2021 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)