Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2024
Temporary-Permanent Pacemakers in the Management of Conduction Abnormalities in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Parekh Jai, Sharma Vikram, Robl Jared, Kshetri Rupesh, Osnard Michael, Vutthikraivit Wasawat, Arustamyan Michael, Deshmukh Abhishek, Rossen James, Horwitz Phillip A, Panaich Sidakpal
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Injury to the cardiac conduction system requiring a permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is a known adverse outcome of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Temporary-permanent pacemakers (TPPM) have been used as a bridge to PPM implantation in patients with systemic infection; however, there are only a few reports of its routine use in patients undergoing TAVR. This study aimed to assess the utility of routine use of TPPM in patients undergoing TAVR with a high risk of needing a PPM or those who develop high-grade conduction abnormalities during/after TAVR.
METHODS: Between April 2015 and December 2021, 978 patients underwent TAVR at our institution, of whom 111 patients had TPPM placed before or during/after TAVR during the study period. In total, 89 patients were included in the final analysis.
RESULTS: The median age was 78 years (IQR, 71-84 years); 52 (58.4%) patients with preexisting native conduction disease were considered high risk for advanced heart block and had TPPM placed before TAVR. In addition, 37 (41.6%) patients had TPPM placed during/after TAVR. Of the 89 patients who received TPPM, 51 (57.3%) were treated with a balloon-expandable valve and 38 (42.7%) with a self-expandable valve. Of the patients who underwent TPPM placement, only 49 (55.1%) required a PPM, and TPPM was removed in 40 (44.9%) patients. TPPM was in place for a median of 6 days (IQR, 2-11 days). Only 1 of the 89 patients (1.1%) who received a TPPM had lead dislodgment. No other complications were noted. Median length of stay was 3 days (IQR, 2-4 days).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with high-risk baseline conduction abnormalities before TAVR and those who develop new high-grade conduction abnormalities during/after TAVR, TPPM provides a feasible and safe method for pacing that could allow early ambulation, facilitate early discharge, and prevent unnecessary PPM implantations in some patients.
METHODS: Between April 2015 and December 2021, 978 patients underwent TAVR at our institution, of whom 111 patients had TPPM placed before or during/after TAVR during the study period. In total, 89 patients were included in the final analysis.
RESULTS: The median age was 78 years (IQR, 71-84 years); 52 (58.4%) patients with preexisting native conduction disease were considered high risk for advanced heart block and had TPPM placed before TAVR. In addition, 37 (41.6%) patients had TPPM placed during/after TAVR. Of the 89 patients who received TPPM, 51 (57.3%) were treated with a balloon-expandable valve and 38 (42.7%) with a self-expandable valve. Of the patients who underwent TPPM placement, only 49 (55.1%) required a PPM, and TPPM was removed in 40 (44.9%) patients. TPPM was in place for a median of 6 days (IQR, 2-11 days). Only 1 of the 89 patients (1.1%) who received a TPPM had lead dislodgment. No other complications were noted. Median length of stay was 3 days (IQR, 2-4 days).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with high-risk baseline conduction abnormalities before TAVR and those who develop new high-grade conduction abnormalities during/after TAVR, TPPM provides a feasible and safe method for pacing that could allow early ambulation, facilitate early discharge, and prevent unnecessary PPM implantations in some patients.