Search

Objectives: The authors sought to evaluate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with contemporary self-expanding valves (SEV)., Background: Need for PPI is frequent post-TAVR, but conflicting data exist on new-generation SEV and on the prognostic impact of PPI., Methods: This study included 3,211 patients enrolled in the multicenter NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) and NEOPRO-2 (A Multicenter Comparison of ACURATE NEO2 Versus Evolut PRO/PRO+ Transcatheter Heart Valves 2) registries (January 2012 to December 2021) who underwent transfemoral TAVR with SEV. Implanted transcatheter heart valves (THV) were Acurate neo (n = 1,090), Acurate neo2 (n = 665), Evolut PRO (n = 1,312), and Evolut PRO+ (n = 144). Incidence and predictors of new PPI and 1-year outcomes were evaluated., Results: New PPI was needed in 362 patients (11.3%) within 30 days after TAVR (8.8%, 7.7%, 15.2%, and 10.4%, respectively, after Acurate neo, Acurate neo2, Evolut PRO, and Evolut PRO+). Independent predictors of new PPI were Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score, baseline right bundle branch block and depth of THV implantation, both in patients treated with Acurate neo/neo2 and in those treated with Evolut PRO/PRO+. Predischarge reduction in ejection fraction (EF) was more frequent in patients requiring PPI (P = 0.014). New PPI was associated with higher 1-year mortality (16.9% vs 10.8%; adjusted HR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.13-2.43; P = 0.010), particularly in patients with baseline EF <40% (P for interaction = 0.049)., Conclusions: New PPI was frequently needed after TAVR with SEV (11.3%) and was associated with higher 1-year mortality, particularly in patients with EF <40%. Baseline right bundle branch block and depth of THV implantation independently predicted the need of PPI., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Pagnesi has received personal fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Vifor Pharma. Dr Kim is a proctor for Boston Scientific and Abbott Vascular; and has received personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Meril outside the submitted work. Dr Barbanti has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr De Marco has served as a proctor for Boston Scientific and Kardia. Dr Adamo has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular and Medtronic. Dr Estévez-Loureiro has served as a consultant for Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific; and is a proctor for Lifetech Scientific. Dr Conradi has served as an advisory board member for Abbott, Medtronic, JenaValve, and Neovasc; and has received personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and MicroInterventions. Dr Toggweiler is a proctor for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Biosensors/NVT; and is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Biosensors/NVT, Medira, Shockwave, Teleflex, AtHeart, VeoSource, and Equity in Hi-D Imaging. Dr Mylotte is a proctor for Medtronic and Microport. Dr Veulemans has received lecture fees and travel support from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Søndergaard has received consultant fees and/or institutional research grants from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and SMT. Dr Wolf is a proctor for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Pilgrim has received institutional research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Biotronik; and has received personal fees from Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Abbott, Medtronic, and HighLifeSAS outside the submitted work. Dr Montorfano serves as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Kardia. Dr Hildick-Smith has served as an adviser or proctor for Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Taramasso is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, 4Tech, and CoreMedic; and has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Sinning is a proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific; has received speaker honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic outside the submitted work. Dr Van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi Sankyo; and has received advisory fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Ancora, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr Khogali is a proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr Wood has received grant support from Boston Scientific; and is a consultant for Medtronic. Dr MacCarthy is a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Hamm has served on advisory boards for Medtronic. Dr Schäfer is a proctor for Boston Scientific and Medtronic; and has received lecture fees and travel support from both companies. Dr Zeus is a proctor for Medtronic; and has received speaker fees and financial scientific support from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Naber has received lecture fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; and has served on advisory boards for Boston Scientific and Abbott Vascular. Dr Windecker has received institutional research and educational grants from Abbott Vascular, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Guerbet, InfraRedx, Johnson & Johnson, Medicure, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, OrPha Suisse, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sinomed, Terumo, and V-Wave. Dr Siqueira is a proctor for Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Sedaghat has received travel grants and support from Medtronic. Dr Metra has received personal fees from Amgen, Vifor Pharma, AstraZeneca, Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Servier, Edwards Therapeutics, Actelion, LivaNova, and Windtree Therapeutics. Dr Latib has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Philips, Edwards Lifesciences. and Abbott Vascular. Dr Mangieri has received an institutional research grant from Boston Scientific; has served on a medical advisory board for Boston Scientific; and has received speaker honoraria from Concept Medical and Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Long-term right ventricular pacing (VP) has been related to negative left ventricular remodeling and heart failure (HF), but there is a lack of evidence regarding the prognostic impact on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients., Objectives: The aim of the PACE-TAVI registry is to evaluate the association of high percentage of VP with adverse outcomes in patients with pacemaker implantation after TAVR., Methods: PACE-TAVI is an international multicenter registry of all consecutive TAVR patients who underwent permanent pacemaker implantation for conduction disturbances in the first 30 days after the procedure. Patients were divided into 2 subgroups according to the percentage of VP (<40% vs ≥40%) at pacemaker interrogation. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular mortality or hospitalization for HF., Results: A total of 377 patients were enrolled, 158 with VP <40% and 219 with VP ≥40%. After multivariable adjustment, VP ≥40% was associated with a higher incidence of the primary endpoint (HR: 2.76; 95% CI: 1.39-5.51; P = 0.004), first HF hospitalization (HR: 3.37; 95% CI: 1.50-7.54; P = 0.003), and cardiovascular death (HR: 3.77; 95% CI: 1.02-13.88; P = 0.04), while the incidence of all-cause death was not significantly different (HR: 2.17; 95% CI: 0.80-5.90; P = 0.13). Patients with VP ≥ 40% showed a higher New York Heart Association functional class both at 1 year (P = 0.009) and at last available follow-up (P = 0.04) and a nonsignificant reduction of left ventricular ejection fraction (P = 0.18) on 1-year echocardiography, while patients with VP <40% showed significant improvement (P = 0.009)., Conclusions: In TAVR patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation, a high percentage of right VP at follow-up is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization. These findings suggest the opportunity to minimize right VP through dedicated algorithms in post-TAVR patients without complete atrioventricular block and to evaluate a more physiological VP modality in patients with persistent complete atrioventricular block., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Ziacchi has received speaker fees from Abbott, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific. Prof Rordorf has received modest speaker fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to describe the rate of complications secondary to permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)., Methods: Patients were identified by retrospective review of a dedicated TAVI database at a single center between 2008 and 2015. Clinical and procedural data were collected to determine the incidence and severity of the main adverse events following this procedure. The overall population included 736 patients and 123 (16.7%) underwent PPM implantation. Three patients were excluded from the final analysis due to PPM implantation occurring at other institutions post discharge. The final population consisted of 120 patients (16.3%)., Results: Self- and mechanically expandable valves were associated with a higher risk of PPM after TAVI compared with balloon-expandable valves (23.9% vs 27.5% vs 7.6%, respectively; P<.001). Year of procedure and operator's experience did not affect the PPM-related complication rate. A high rate of major bleeding complications (n = 29; 24.1%) was observed. Major bleeding occurred more frequently in patients who received PPM implantation within the first 24 hours post TAVI than in the group of patients who required a PPM >24 hours post TAVI (38.2% vs 12.3%, respectively; P<.01). Patients who experienced a major bleeding event following PPM insertion were more frequently on triple-antithrombotic therapy (51.7% vs 9.9%; P<.001)., Conclusions: PPM-related complications are common in elderly patients after TAVI, and some of these adverse events can be life threatening. Particular attention is required in the periprocedural management of these patients.

Objectives: This study sought to determine predictors of advanced conduction disturbances requiring late (≥48 h) permanent pacemaker replacement (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Methods: Data of consecutive patients were identified by retrospective review of a TAVR database of a single center in Milan, Italy, between October 2007 and July 2015. We defined delta PR (ΔPR) and delta QRS (ΔQRS) interval as the difference between the last PR and QRS length available 48 h after TAVR and the baseline PR and QRS length., Results: Overall population included 740 patients. We excluded 78 patients who already had a PPM and 51 patients who received a PPM <48 h after TAVR. The final analysis included 611 patients. Fifty-four patients (8.8%) developed an advanced conduction disturbance requiring PPM ≥48 h following TAVR. Patients who required a late PPM implant had a wider QRS width (113 ± 25 ms vs. 105 ± 23 ms; p = 0.009) and a higher prevalence of baseline right bundle branch block (12.9% vs. 5.3%; p = 0.026) and were more likely to have a self-expandable valve implanted (51.8% vs. 31.9%; p = 0.003). The ΔPR was 40 ± 51 ms (p = 0.0001) and the ΔQRS was 22 ± 61 ms (p = 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that baseline right bundle branch block (odds ratio: 3.56; 95% confidence interval: 1.07 to 11.77; p = 0.037) and ΔPR (odds ratio for each 10-ms increase: 1.31; 95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 1.45; p = 0.0001) are independent predictors of delayed advanced conduction disturbances., Conclusions: This analysis showed that baseline right bundle branch block and the amount of increase of PR length after TAVR are independent predictors of late (≥48 h) advanced conduction disturbances requiring PPM replacement after TAVR in this cohort. A simple ECG analysis could help in detecting potentially lethal advanced conduction disturbances that could occur more than 48 h after TAVR., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)