Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2014
Pacemaker implantation and need for ventricular pacing during follow-up after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Ramazzina Carola, Knecht Sven, Jeger Raban, Kaiser Christoph, Schaer Beat, Osswald Stefan, Sticherling Christian, Kühne Michael
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To categorize indications of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), to determine predictors for conduction disturbances and to quantify the need for ventricular pacing during follow-up.
METHOD: We studied 97 patients (median age 83 years, 58% female) undergoing TAVI using the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving System (MCRS; Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) or Edwards-Sapien Valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA). During follow-up, no need for ventricular pacing was defined as <1% ventricular pacing and intrinsic 1:1 atrioventricular (AV) conduction.
RESULTS: In the 35 patients (36.1%) undergoing PPM implantation three indication categories were identified: (1) high-grade AV block (Mobitz 2 or higher), (2) new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) with a prolonged PR interval, and (3) new-onset LBBB. The only independent predictors of high-grade AV block were the use of MCRS (odds ratio [OR] 79.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.57-1373.31) and the presence of preprocedural right bundle branch block (OR 81.95; 95% 95% CI 8.72-770.46). Whereas high-grade AV block resolved only in 17% of cases, none of the patients receiving a PPM due to LBBB with or without PR prolongation required ventricular pacing during follow-up.
CONCLUSION: Our findings justify early PPM implantation in patients with high-grade AV block and may suggest a more conservative approach to PPM implantation in patients with new-onset LBBB after TAVI.
METHOD: We studied 97 patients (median age 83 years, 58% female) undergoing TAVI using the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving System (MCRS; Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) or Edwards-Sapien Valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA). During follow-up, no need for ventricular pacing was defined as <1% ventricular pacing and intrinsic 1:1 atrioventricular (AV) conduction.
RESULTS: In the 35 patients (36.1%) undergoing PPM implantation three indication categories were identified: (1) high-grade AV block (Mobitz 2 or higher), (2) new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) with a prolonged PR interval, and (3) new-onset LBBB. The only independent predictors of high-grade AV block were the use of MCRS (odds ratio [OR] 79.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.57-1373.31) and the presence of preprocedural right bundle branch block (OR 81.95; 95% 95% CI 8.72-770.46). Whereas high-grade AV block resolved only in 17% of cases, none of the patients receiving a PPM due to LBBB with or without PR prolongation required ventricular pacing during follow-up.
CONCLUSION: Our findings justify early PPM implantation in patients with high-grade AV block and may suggest a more conservative approach to PPM implantation in patients with new-onset LBBB after TAVI.