Cargando…

Yield of the electrophysiological study in patients with new-onset left bundle branch block after transcathether aortic valve replacement: The PR interval matters

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that performing an electrophysiological study (EPS) may be useful to identify patients with new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) post-TAVR at risk of atrioventricular block. However, tools to optimize the yield of such strategy are needed. We therefore aimed to inves...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pagnoni, Mattia, Meier, David, Luca, Adrian, Fournier, Stephane, Aminfar, Farhang, Gentil, Pascale, Haddad, Christelle, Domenichini, Giulia, Le Bloa, Mathieu, Herrera-Siklody, Claudia, Cook, Stephane, Goy, Jean-Jacques, Roguelov, Christan, Girod, Grégoire, Rubimbura, Vladimir, Dupré, Marion, Eeckhout, Eric, Pruvot, Etienne, Muller, Olivier, Pascale, Patrizio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9485718/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36148076
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.910693
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that performing an electrophysiological study (EPS) may be useful to identify patients with new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) post-TAVR at risk of atrioventricular block. However, tools to optimize the yield of such strategy are needed. We therefore aimed to investigate whether 12-lead ECG changes post-TAVR may help identify patients with abnormal EPS findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with new-onset LBBB post-TAVR who underwent EPS were included. PR and QRS intervals were measured on 12-lead ECG pre-TAVR and during EPS. Abnormal EPS was defined as an HV interval > 55 ms. RESULTS: Among 61 patients, 28 (46%) had an HV interval > 55 ms after TAVR. Post-TAVR PR interval and ΔPR (PR-post–pre-TAVR) were significantly longer in patients with prolonged HV (PR: 188 ± 38 vs. 228 ± 34 ms, p < 0.001, ΔPR: 10 ± 30 vs. 34 ± 23 ms, p = 0.001), while no difference was found in QRS duration. PR and ΔPR intervals both effectively discriminated patients with HV > 55 ms (AUC = 0.804 and 0.769, respectively; p < 0.001). A PR > 200 ms identified patients with abnormal EPS results with a sensitivity of 89% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 88%. ΔPR ≥ 20 ms alone provided a somewhat lower sensitivity (64%) but combining both criteria (i.e., PR > 200 ms or ΔPR ≥ 20 ms) identified almost every patients with abnormal HV (sensitivity = 96%, NPV = 95%). Selecting EPS candidate based on both criteria would avoid 1/3 of exams. CONCLUSION: PR interval assessment may be useful to select patients with new-onset LBBB after TAVR who may benefit most from an EPS. In patients with PR ≤ 200 ms and ΔPR < 20 ms the likelihood of abnormal EPS is very low independently of QRS changes.