Insights in a restricted temporary pacemaker strategy in a lean transcatheter aortic valve implantation program

OBJECTIVES: To study the safety and feasibility of a restrictive temporary‐RV‐pacemaker use and to evaluate the need for temporary pacemaker insertion for failed left ventricular (LV) pacing ability (no ventricular capture) or occurrence of high‐degree AV‐blocks mandating continuous pacing. BACKGROUND: Ventricular pacing remains an essential part of contemporary transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). A temporary‐right‐ventricle (RV)‐pacemaker lead is the standard approach for transient pacing during TAVI but requires central venous access. METHODS: An observational registry including 672 patients who underwent TAVI between June 2018 and December 2020. Patients received pacing on the wire when necessary, unless there was a high‐anticipated risk for conduction disturbances post‐TAVI, based on the baseline‐ECG. The follow‐up period was 30 days. RESULTS: A temporary‐RV‐pacemaker lead (RVP‐cohort) was inserted in 45 patients, pacing on the wire (LVP‐cohort) in 488 patients, and no pacing (NoP‐cohort) in 139 patients. A bailout temporary pacemaker was implanted in 14 patients (10.1%) in the NoP‐cohort and in 24 patients (4.9%) in the LVP‐cohort. One patient in the LVP‐cohort needed an RV‐pacemaker for incomplete ventricular capture. Procedure time was significantly longer in the RVP‐cohort (68 min [IQR 52–88.] vs. 55 min [IQR 44–72] in NoP‐cohort and 55 min [IQR 43–71] in the LVP‐cohort [p < 0.005]). Procedural high‐degree AV‐block occurred most often in the RVP‐cohort (45% vs. 14% in the LVP and 16% in the NoP‐cohort [p ≤ 0.001]). Need for new PPI occurred in 47% in the RVP‐cohort, versus 20% in the NoP‐cohort and 11% in the LVP‐cohort (p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: A restricted RV‐pacemaker strategy is safe and shortens procedure time. The majority of TAVI‐procedures do not require a temporary‐RV‐pacemaker.