AV Block Post-TAVR

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Cardiac Conduction Abnormalities: Prevalence, Risk Factors and Management

Over the last decades, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or replacement (TAVR) has become a potential, widely accepted, and effective method of treating aortic stenosis in patients at moderate and high surgical risk and those disqualified from surgery. The method evolved what translates into a noticeable decrease in the incidence of complications and more beneficial clinical outcomes. However, the incidence of conduction abnormalities related to TAVI, including left bundle branch block and complete or second-degree atrioventricular block (AVB), remains high. The occurrence of AVB requiring permanent pacemaker implantation is associated with a worse prognosis in this group of patients. The identification of risk factors for conduction disturbances requiring pacemaker placement and the assessment of their relation to pacing dependence may help to develop methods of optimal care, including preventive measures, for patients undergoing TAVI. This approach is crucial given the emerging evidence of no worse outcomes for intermediate and low-risk patients undergoing TAVI in comparison to surgical aortic valve replacement. This paper comprehensively discusses the mechanisms, risk factors, and consequences of conduction abnormalities and arrhythmias, including AVB, atrial fibrillation, and ventricular arrhythmias associated with aortic stenosis and TAVI, as well as provides insights into optimized patient care, along with the potential of conduction system pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy, to minimize the risk of unfavorable clinical outcomes.

Safety and feasibility of left bundle branch area pacing following valvular interventions: Multicenter study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in patients with valvular interventions.

METHODS

Eighty-four patients were included in this study. All patients underwent recent surgical or percutaneous valvular interventions. LBBAP was attempted in all patients. Implant success rates, peri- and postprocedure electrocardiogram, pacing parameters, and complications were assessed at implant, and during follow-up.

RESULTS

LBBAP implantation was successful in 80/84 (95%) patients. Mean age was 74.1 ± 13.8 years and 56% patients were male. Prior valvular replacements included: percutaneous aortic (26), surgical aortic (36), combined surgical aortic plus mitral (6), MVR (10), tricuspid (1), and pulmonic (1). Average LVEF was 52.6 ± 11%. Majority of patients underwent LBBAP due to atrioventricular block (76%) and sinus node disease (13%). Total procedure duration was 74.1 ± 12.5 min and fluoroscopic duration was 9.7 ± 6.8 min. Pacing parameters were stable during follow-up period of 10.0 ± 6.3 months. Pacing QRS duration was significantly narrower than baseline QRS duration (131.5 ± 31.4 ms vs. 114.3 ± 13.7 ms, p < .001, respectively). No acute complications were observed. Mean follow-up was 10.0 ± 6.3 months (median: 8.4 months, min: 1 and max: 24 months). During follow-up, there were three device infections and two patients had loss of LBBA capture within 1 month of implant.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP is a feasible and safe pacing modality in patients with prior interventions for valvular heart disease.

Heart failure following transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Introduction: Over the past decade, the number of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures has increased exponentially. Despite major improvements in both device and successes, the rate of hospital readmission after TAVR remains high, with heart failure (HF) decompensation being one of the most important causes.Areas covered: This review provides an overview of the current status of HF following TAVR, including details about its incidence, clinical impact, contributing factors, and current and future treatment perspectives.Expert opinion: HF decompensation has been identified as the most common cause of rehospitalization following TAVR, and it has been associated with a negative prognosis. Multiple preexisting factors including low flow status, cardiac amyloidosis, myocardial fibrosis, multivalvular disease, pulmonary hypertension, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation have been associated with an increased risk of HF events. Also, multiple post-procedural factors like the occurrence of significant paravalvular leaks, severe prosthesis-patient mismatch, and conduction disturbances have also contributed to increase this risk . Thus, reducing HF events in TAVR recipients would require a multifactorial and multidisciplinary effort including the optimization of the medical treatment and close follow-up and treatment of residual or concomitant valvular disease and conduction disturbance issues. Future studies in this challenging group of patients are warranted.

Impact of His bundle pacing on right ventricular performance in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation

BACKGROUND

His-Bundle pacing (HBP) is an emerging technique for physiological pacing. However, its effects on right ventricle (RV) performance are still unknown.

METHODS

We enrolled consecutive patients with an indication for pacemaker (PM) implantation to compare HBP versus RV pacing (RVP) effects on RV performance. Patients were evaluated before implantation and after 6 months by a transthoracic echocardiogram.

RESULTS

A total of 84 patients (age 75.1±7.9 years, 64% male) were enrolled, 42 patients (50%) underwent successful HBP, and 42 patients (50%) apical RVP. At follow up, we found a significant improvement in RV-FAC (Fractional Area Change)% [baseline: HBP 34 IQR (31-37) vs. RVP 33 IQR (29.7-37.2),p = .602; 6-months: HBP 37 IQR (33-39) vs. RVP 30 IQR (27.7-35), p < .0001] and RV-GLS (Global Longitudinal Strain)% [baseline: HBP -18 IQR (-20.2 to -15) vs. RVP -16 IQR (-18.7 to -14), p = .150; 6-months: HBP -20 IQR(-23 to -17) vs. RVP -13.5 IQR (-16 to -11), p < .0001] with HBP whereas RVP was associated with a significant decline in both parameters. RVP was also associated with a significant worsening of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) (p < .0001) and S wave velocity (p < .0001) at follow up. Conversely from RVP, HBP significantly improved pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) [baseline: HBP 38 IQR (32-42) mmHg vs. RVP 34 IQR (31.5-37) mmHg,p = .060; 6-months: HBP 32 IQR (26-38) mmHg vs. RVP 39 IQR (36-41) mmHg, p < .0001] and tricuspid regurgitation (p = .005) irrespectively from lead position above or below the tricuspid valve.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing PM implantation, HBP ensues a beneficial and protective impact on RV performance compared with RVP.