Heart rhythm · 2020
Long-term percentage of ventricular pacing in patients requiring pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A multicenter 10-year experience.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Baldi Enrico, Compagnone Miriam, Errigo Daniele, Ferlini Marco, Ziacchi Matteo, Castagno Davide, Minguzzi Alessandro, Demarchi Andrea, Savastano Simone, Bruno Francesco, Golzio Pier Giorgio, Palmerini Tullio, Saia Francesco, Di Giacomo Ciro, Mauri Silvia, Biffi Mauro, De Ferrari Gaetano Maria, Rordorf Roberto
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that atrioventricular (AV) conduction may recover after pacemaker (PM) implantation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but little is known about long-term follow-up of such patients.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term percentage of right ventricular pacing in patients who underwent TAVR and required PM implantation stratified based on the indication for permanent pacing.
METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients who underwent TAVR from February 2008 to August 2019 at 3 centers was performed. Patients already implanted with a PM/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) before TAVR, implanted with a cardiac resynchronization therapy device, or implanted >30 days after TAVR were excluded. Eligible patients were divided into 2 groups based on the presence (persistent atrioventricular block [AVB] group) or absence (nonpersistent AVB group) of persistent third-degree AVB after TAVR.
RESULTS: A total of 1594 patients underwent TAVR. Two hundred four patients were implanted with a PM or ICD after TAVR and 32 met exclusion criteria, so 172 patients were eligible (median time TAVR-PM implant 4 days) for a total of 352 follow-up visits analyzed. A significant difference in the percentage of ventricular pacing was observed at follow-up performed 7-90 days after implantation (98% persistent AVB group vs 8% nonpersistent AVB group; P <.001). This difference remained significant at follow-up performed 91-270 days (95% vs 3.5%; P <.001), 271-540 days (95.5% vs 3%; P = .006), and 541-900 days (97.4% vs 2.2%; P <.001) after implantation.
CONCLUSION: Patients requiring PM implantation due to persistent third-degree AVB after TAVR were less likely to show AV conduction recovery, whereas patients implanted for other indications showed a low percentage of pacing during follow-up.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term percentage of right ventricular pacing in patients who underwent TAVR and required PM implantation stratified based on the indication for permanent pacing.
METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients who underwent TAVR from February 2008 to August 2019 at 3 centers was performed. Patients already implanted with a PM/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) before TAVR, implanted with a cardiac resynchronization therapy device, or implanted >30 days after TAVR were excluded. Eligible patients were divided into 2 groups based on the presence (persistent atrioventricular block [AVB] group) or absence (nonpersistent AVB group) of persistent third-degree AVB after TAVR.
RESULTS: A total of 1594 patients underwent TAVR. Two hundred four patients were implanted with a PM or ICD after TAVR and 32 met exclusion criteria, so 172 patients were eligible (median time TAVR-PM implant 4 days) for a total of 352 follow-up visits analyzed. A significant difference in the percentage of ventricular pacing was observed at follow-up performed 7-90 days after implantation (98% persistent AVB group vs 8% nonpersistent AVB group; P <.001). This difference remained significant at follow-up performed 91-270 days (95% vs 3.5%; P <.001), 271-540 days (95.5% vs 3%; P = .006), and 541-900 days (97.4% vs 2.2%; P <.001) after implantation.
CONCLUSION: Patients requiring PM implantation due to persistent third-degree AVB after TAVR were less likely to show AV conduction recovery, whereas patients implanted for other indications showed a low percentage of pacing during follow-up.