Cargando…

Long-term impact of pacemaker implantation after TAVI: a subgroup analysis according to previous intraventricular conduction disturbances

FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Type of funding sources: None. INTRODUCTION: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a worldwide accepted treatment for severe aortic stenosis (AS). Conduction system disturbances, frequently requiring permanent pacemaker (PM) implantation, remain one of the most...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lacerda Teixeira, B, Grazina, A, Castelo, A, Mendonca, T, Rodrigues, I, Ramos, R, Fiarresga, A, Osorio, P, Portugal, G, Valente, B, Silva Cunha, P, Lousinha, A, Cruz Ferreira, R, Cacela, D, Oliveira, M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10207674/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euad122.408
_version_ 1785046509423689728
author Lacerda Teixeira, B
Grazina, A
Castelo, A
Mendonca, T
Rodrigues, I
Ramos, R
Fiarresga, A
Osorio, P
Portugal, G
Valente, B
Silva Cunha, P
Lousinha, A
Cruz Ferreira, R
Cacela, D
Oliveira, M
author_facet Lacerda Teixeira, B
Grazina, A
Castelo, A
Mendonca, T
Rodrigues, I
Ramos, R
Fiarresga, A
Osorio, P
Portugal, G
Valente, B
Silva Cunha, P
Lousinha, A
Cruz Ferreira, R
Cacela, D
Oliveira, M
author_sort Lacerda Teixeira, B
collection PubMed
description FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Type of funding sources: None. INTRODUCTION: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a worldwide accepted treatment for severe aortic stenosis (AS). Conduction system disturbances, frequently requiring permanent pacemaker (PM) implantation, remain one of the most common procedural complication. Whether the permanent ventricular pacing has a deleterious impact on the prognosis of this population remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term impact of permanent PM implantation in clinical outcomes after TAVI. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients (P) who underwent TAVI between 2009 and 2021 in a single tertiary center.P with a PM implanted before TAVI or with in-hospital mortality were excluded from the analysis. PM implantation post-TAVI was defined as an implant during hospital stay after TAVI or in the first month after discharge. Kaplan Meier survival curves were used to estimate the impact of permanent PM after TAVI, regarding the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization during a 4 years follow-up period, and a comparison performed according to the presence or absence of baseline intraventricular conduction disturbances. RESULTS: 549 P (82±6.6 years, 56.8% female, left ventricular ejection fraction 53±10%, peak gradient 51±15.6 mmHg, aortic valve area 0.7± 0.2 cm2) were included. At baseline, 108 P (20%) had intraventricular conduction disturbances on ECG (50 P with right bundle branch block [RBBB] and 58 P with left bundle branch block [LBBB]). 127 P (23%) required PM implantation after TAVI. Baseline characteristics were similar between P with and without PM implantation, except for age, gender, previous valvular surgery and RBBB (Table 1). At 48 months follow-up, 35% (n=193) met the composite endpoint, that was similar between both groups (35.8% vs. 34.1%, p=0.731). Kaplan-Meier survival curves revealed no difference in the composite endpoint between the two groups (log-rank p=0.170). Further analysis of subgroups according to the presence or absence of baseline intraventricular conduction disturbances revealed a significant difference among the subgroup of P without previous intraventricular conduction disturbances that underwent PM implantation after TAVI (log rank p=0.02) (Fig 1). This difference in the composite endpoint after PM was not found in the subgroups of P with RBBB (log rank p=0.656) or LBBB (log rank p=0.975) at baseline (Fig 2).* CONCLUSIONS: Permanent PM implant after TAVI does not have an impact on long-term HF hospitalization and mortality. However, in the specific subgroup of P without previous intraventricular conduction disturbances, PM implantation seems to be associated with worse prognosis. [Figure: see text] [Figure: see text]
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10207674
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102076742023-05-25 Long-term impact of pacemaker implantation after TAVI: a subgroup analysis according to previous intraventricular conduction disturbances Lacerda Teixeira, B Grazina, A Castelo, A Mendonca, T Rodrigues, I Ramos, R Fiarresga, A Osorio, P Portugal, G Valente, B Silva Cunha, P Lousinha, A Cruz Ferreira, R Cacela, D Oliveira, M Europace 14.1 - Antibradycardia Pacing FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Type of funding sources: None. INTRODUCTION: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a worldwide accepted treatment for severe aortic stenosis (AS). Conduction system disturbances, frequently requiring permanent pacemaker (PM) implantation, remain one of the most common procedural complication. Whether the permanent ventricular pacing has a deleterious impact on the prognosis of this population remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term impact of permanent PM implantation in clinical outcomes after TAVI. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients (P) who underwent TAVI between 2009 and 2021 in a single tertiary center.P with a PM implanted before TAVI or with in-hospital mortality were excluded from the analysis. PM implantation post-TAVI was defined as an implant during hospital stay after TAVI or in the first month after discharge. Kaplan Meier survival curves were used to estimate the impact of permanent PM after TAVI, regarding the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization during a 4 years follow-up period, and a comparison performed according to the presence or absence of baseline intraventricular conduction disturbances. RESULTS: 549 P (82±6.6 years, 56.8% female, left ventricular ejection fraction 53±10%, peak gradient 51±15.6 mmHg, aortic valve area 0.7± 0.2 cm2) were included. At baseline, 108 P (20%) had intraventricular conduction disturbances on ECG (50 P with right bundle branch block [RBBB] and 58 P with left bundle branch block [LBBB]). 127 P (23%) required PM implantation after TAVI. Baseline characteristics were similar between P with and without PM implantation, except for age, gender, previous valvular surgery and RBBB (Table 1). At 48 months follow-up, 35% (n=193) met the composite endpoint, that was similar between both groups (35.8% vs. 34.1%, p=0.731). Kaplan-Meier survival curves revealed no difference in the composite endpoint between the two groups (log-rank p=0.170). Further analysis of subgroups according to the presence or absence of baseline intraventricular conduction disturbances revealed a significant difference among the subgroup of P without previous intraventricular conduction disturbances that underwent PM implantation after TAVI (log rank p=0.02) (Fig 1). This difference in the composite endpoint after PM was not found in the subgroups of P with RBBB (log rank p=0.656) or LBBB (log rank p=0.975) at baseline (Fig 2).* CONCLUSIONS: Permanent PM implant after TAVI does not have an impact on long-term HF hospitalization and mortality. However, in the specific subgroup of P without previous intraventricular conduction disturbances, PM implantation seems to be associated with worse prognosis. [Figure: see text] [Figure: see text] Oxford University Press 2023-05-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10207674/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euad122.408 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle 14.1 - Antibradycardia Pacing
Lacerda Teixeira, B
Grazina, A
Castelo, A
Mendonca, T
Rodrigues, I
Ramos, R
Fiarresga, A
Osorio, P
Portugal, G
Valente, B
Silva Cunha, P
Lousinha, A
Cruz Ferreira, R
Cacela, D
Oliveira, M
Long-term impact of pacemaker implantation after TAVI: a subgroup analysis according to previous intraventricular conduction disturbances
title Long-term impact of pacemaker implantation after TAVI: a subgroup analysis according to previous intraventricular conduction disturbances
title_full Long-term impact of pacemaker implantation after TAVI: a subgroup analysis according to previous intraventricular conduction disturbances
title_fullStr Long-term impact of pacemaker implantation after TAVI: a subgroup analysis according to previous intraventricular conduction disturbances
title_full_unstemmed Long-term impact of pacemaker implantation after TAVI: a subgroup analysis according to previous intraventricular conduction disturbances
title_short Long-term impact of pacemaker implantation after TAVI: a subgroup analysis according to previous intraventricular conduction disturbances
title_sort long-term impact of pacemaker implantation after tavi: a subgroup analysis according to previous intraventricular conduction disturbances
topic 14.1 - Antibradycardia Pacing
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10207674/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euad122.408
work_keys_str_mv AT lacerdateixeirab longtermimpactofpacemakerimplantationaftertaviasubgroupanalysisaccordingtopreviousintraventricularconductiondisturbances
AT grazinaa longtermimpactofpacemakerimplantationaftertaviasubgroupanalysisaccordingtopreviousintraventricularconductiondisturbances
AT casteloa longtermimpactofpacemakerimplantationaftertaviasubgroupanalysisaccordingtopreviousintraventricularconductiondisturbances
AT mendoncat longtermimpactofpacemakerimplantationaftertaviasubgroupanalysisaccordingtopreviousintraventricularconductiondisturbances
AT rodriguesi longtermimpactofpacemakerimplantationaftertaviasubgroupanalysisaccordingtopreviousintraventricularconductiondisturbances
AT ramosr longtermimpactofpacemakerimplantationaftertaviasubgroupanalysisaccordingtopreviousintraventricularconductiondisturbances
AT fiarresgaa longtermimpactofpacemakerimplantationaftertaviasubgroupanalysisaccordingtopreviousintraventricularconductiondisturbances
AT osoriop longtermimpactofpacemakerimplantationaftertaviasubgroupanalysisaccordingtopreviousintraventricularconductiondisturbances
AT portugalg longtermimpactofpacemakerimplantationaftertaviasubgroupanalysisaccordingtopreviousintraventricularconductiondisturbances
AT valenteb longtermimpactofpacemakerimplantationaftertaviasubgroupanalysisaccordingtopreviousintraventricularconductiondisturbances
AT silvacunhap longtermimpactofpacemakerimplantationaftertaviasubgroupanalysisaccordingtopreviousintraventricularconductiondisturbances
AT lousinhaa longtermimpactofpacemakerimplantationaftertaviasubgroupanalysisaccordingtopreviousintraventricularconductiondisturbances
AT cruzferreirar longtermimpactofpacemakerimplantationaftertaviasubgroupanalysisaccordingtopreviousintraventricularconductiondisturbances
AT cacelad longtermimpactofpacemakerimplantationaftertaviasubgroupanalysisaccordingtopreviousintraventricularconductiondisturbances
AT oliveiram longtermimpactofpacemakerimplantationaftertaviasubgroupanalysisaccordingtopreviousintraventricularconductiondisturbances