TCT-733 Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients Treated in Routine Clinical Practice with the Repositionable and Fully Retrievable Lotus Valve

A comparison of the fully repositionable and retrievable Boston Lotus and direct flow medical valves for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis: A single center experience

BACKGROUND

Second generation transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) devices have been designed to reduce the rate of paravalvular leak (PVL) and other complications. An important technological advancement has been the ability to fully reposition devices to facilitate optimal implantation depth and position to reduce the likelihood of PVL.

OBJECTIVES

To compare procedural and 30-day outcomes according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 criteria following TAVI with the fully repositionable and retrievable Lotus and DFM devices.

METHODS AND RESULTS

175 patients with severe aortic stenosis underwent transfemoral TAVI with the Lotus (n = 60) and DFM (n = 115) valve. Baseline clinical characteristics did not differ between the two groups. All devices were successfully implanted, with one case of valve embolization in the Lotus group. Device success (95 vs. 98.2%, P = 0.89), VARC-defined combined safety (90 vs. 93%, P = 0.48), and clinical efficacy (86.7 vs. 90.4%, P = 0.65) rates at 30-days were similar between Lotus and DFM groups. There was no severe PVL; one patient in both Lotus and DFM group developed moderate PVL after the procedure. The Lotus valve was associated with a higher rate of new pacemaker implantation (37.3 vs. 11.2%, P < 0.001) and a lower mean aortic gradient (9.4 ± 5 vs. 12.3 ± 5, P < 0.001) at 30-days as compared with the DFM valve.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center, retrospective analysis, both Lotus and DFM devices demonstrated excellent device success, safety and efficacy at 30-day follow-up. The DFM valve was associated with minimally higher transvalvular gradients but lower new pacemaker implantation rates when compared to the Lotus valve.

Conduction Disturbances After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a well-accepted option for treating patients with aortic stenosis at intermediate to high or prohibitive surgical risk. TAVR-related conduction disturbances, mainly new-onset left bundle-branch block and advanced atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacemaker implantation, remain the most common complication of this procedure. Furthermore, improvements in TAVR technology, akin to the increasing experience of operators/centers, have translated to a major reduction in periprocedural complications, yet the incidence of conduction disturbances has remained relatively high, with perhaps an increasing trend over time. Several factors have been associated with a heightened risk of conduction disturbances and permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVR, with prior right bundle-branch block and transcatheter valve type and implantation depth being the most commonly reported. New-onset left bundle-branch block and the need for permanent pacemaker implantation may have a significant detrimental association with patients’ prognosis. Consequently, strategies intended to reduce the risk and to improve the management of such complications are of paramount importance, particularly in an era when TAVR expansion toward treating lower-risk patients is considered inevitable. In this article, we review the available evidence on the incidence, predictive factors, and clinical association of conduction disturbances after TAVR and propose a strategy for the management of these complications.