Predictors for the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Post-TAVR conduction abnormalities leading to permanent pacemaker implantation: Risk factors, prevention, and management

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) often leads to conduction abnormalities, necessitating pacemaker implantation. This review of 38 meta-analyses identified preexisting right bundle branch block (RBBB), LAHB, and new-onset left bundle branch block as key risk factors, with a higher PPM risk in male and older patients. Procedural factors like transfemoral access and self-expandable valves also increase this risk. Prevention focuses on tailoring TAVR to individual electrophysiological and anatomical profiles. However, there's a lack of consensus in managing these conduction disturbances post-TAVR, highlighting the need for further research and standardized treatment strategies.

Utility of rapid atrial pacing before and after TAVR with balloon-expandable valve in predicting permanent pacemaker implantation

BACKGROUND

High-grade or complete atrioventricular block (AVB) requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is a known complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Wenckebach AVB induced by rapid atrial pacing (RAP) after TAVR was previously demonstrated in an observational analysis to be an independent predictor for PPM. We sought to investigate the utility of both pre- and post-TAVR RAP in predicting PPM implantation.

METHODS

In a single-center, prospective study, 421 patients underwent TAVR with balloon-expandable valves (BEV) between April 2020 and August 2021. Intraprocedural RAP was performed in patients without a pre-existing pacemaker, atrial fibrillation/flutter, or intraprocedural complete AVB to assess for RAP-induced Wenckebach AVB. The primary outcome was PPM within 30 days after TAVR.

RESULTS

RAP was performed in 253 patients, of whom 91.3% underwent post-TAVR RAP and 61.2% underwent pre-TAVR RAP. The overall PPM implantation rate at 30 days was 9.9%. Although there was a numerically higher rate of PPM at 30 days in patients with RAP-induced Wenckebach AVB, it did not reach statistical significance (13.3% vs. 8.4%, p = 0.23). In a multivariable analysis, RAP-induced Wenckebach was not an independent predictor for PPM implantation at 30 days after TAVR. PPM rates at 30 days were comparable in patients with or without pre-TAVR pacing-induced Wenckebach AVB (11.8% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.51) and post-TAVR pacing-induced Wenckebach AVB (10.2% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.25).

CONCLUSION

In patients who underwent TAVR with BEV, there were no statistically significant differences in PPM implantation rates at 30 days regardless of the presence or absence of RAP-induced Wenckebach AVB. Due to conflicting results between the present study and the prior observational analysis, future studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to determine the role of RAP during TAVR as a risk-stratification tool for significant AVB requiring PPM after TAVR.

Incidence, Predictors, and Prognostic Impact of New Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After TAVR With Self-Expanding Valves

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to evaluate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with contemporary self-expanding valves (SEV).

BACKGROUND

Need for PPI is frequent post-TAVR, but conflicting data exist on new-generation SEV and on the prognostic impact of PPI.

METHODS

This study included 3,211 patients enrolled in the multicenter NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) and NEOPRO-2 (A Multicenter Comparison of ACURATE NEO2 Versus Evolut PRO/PRO+ Transcatheter Heart Valves 2) registries (January 2012 to December 2021) who underwent transfemoral TAVR with SEV. Implanted transcatheter heart valves (THV) were Acurate neo (n = 1,090), Acurate neo2 (n = 665), Evolut PRO (n = 1,312), and Evolut PRO+ (n = 144). Incidence and predictors of new PPI and 1-year outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

New PPI was needed in 362 patients (11.3%) within 30 days after TAVR (8.8%, 7.7%, 15.2%, and 10.4%, respectively, after Acurate neo, Acurate neo2, Evolut PRO, and Evolut PRO+). Independent predictors of new PPI were Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score, baseline right bundle branch block and depth of THV implantation, both in patients treated with Acurate neo/neo2 and in those treated with Evolut PRO/PRO+. Predischarge reduction in ejection fraction (EF) was more frequent in patients requiring PPI (P = 0.014). New PPI was associated with higher 1-year mortality (16.9% vs 10.8%; adjusted HR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.13-2.43; P = 0.010), particularly in patients with baseline EF <40% (P for interaction = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

New PPI was frequently needed after TAVR with SEV (11.3%) and was associated with higher 1-year mortality, particularly in patients with EF <40%. Baseline right bundle branch block and depth of THV implantation independently predicted the need of PPI.

Rationale and Design of the Randomized Bayesian Multicenter COME-TAVI Trial in Patients With a New Onset Left Bundle Branch Block

Patients with new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are at risk of developing delayed high-degree atrioventricular block. Management of new-onset LBBB post-TAVI remains controversial. In the Comparison of a Clinical Monitoring Strategy Versus Electrophysiology-Guided Algorithmic Approach in Patients With a New LBBB After TAVI (COME-TAVI) trial, consenting patients with new-onset LBBB that persists on day 2 after TAVI, meeting exclusion/inclusion criteria, are randomized to an electrophysiological study (EPS)-guided approach or 30-day electrocardiographic monitoring. In the EPS-guided approach, patients with a His to ventricle (HV) interval ≥ 65 ms undergo permanent pacemaker implantation. Patients randomized to noninvasive monitoring receive a wearable continuous electrocardiographic recording and transmitting device for 30 days. Follow-up will be performed at 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary endpoint is a composite outcome designed to capture net clinical benefit. The endpoint incorporates major consequences of both strategies in patients with new-onset LBBB after TAVI, as follows: (i) sudden cardiac death; (ii) syncope; (iii) atrioventricular conduction disorder requiring a pacemaker (for a class I or IIa indication); and (iv) complications related to the pacemaker or EPS. The trial incorporates a Bayesian design with a noninformative prior, outcome-adaptive randomization (initially 1:1), and 2 prespecified interim analyses once 25% and 50% of the anticipated number of primary endpoints are reached. The trial is event-driven, with an anticipated upper limit of 452 patients required to reach 77 primary outcome events over 12 months of follow-up. In summary, the aim of this Bayesian multicentre randomized trial is to compare 2 management strategies in patients with new-onset LBBB post-TAVI-an EPS-guided approach vs noninvasive 30-day monitoring. Trial registration number: NCT03303612.

Hybrid Approach Using the Cusp-Overlap Technique for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With a Balloon-Expandable Valve

BACKGROUND

The cusp-overlap (CO) technique has recently been advocated and is being increasingly adopted for self-expandable transcatheter heart valve (THV) implantation.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, implantation depth, and outcomes of the CO technique for the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 THV.

METHODS

The CO technique was used in consecutive patients undergoing balloon-expandable THV implantation at one center between April 2021 and March 2022. Optimal fluoroscopic angles were determined from preprocedural computed tomography and confirmed on predeployment angiography. The THV radiolucent line was positioned 2 to 4 mm below the noncoronary cusp in the CO view, and positioning was confirmed in the 3-cusp view. Postdeployment THV implantation depth was assessed in both views. One-month outcomes were assessed using Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria.

RESULTS

Among 137 patients eligible for the CO technique, the CO view was not used because of unfavorable ergonomics in 27 patients (26.5%) and hemodynamic instability in 8 patients (7.8%). Among 102 patients, the mean age was 81.1 ± 6.6 years, the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 3.3% ± 2.2%, and 64.7% were men. The mean measured THV implantation depth was 3.0 ± 1.4 mm in the CO view and 2.5 ± 1.4 mm in the 3-cusp view. At 1-month follow-up, 1 patient (1.0%) had died, 1 (1.0%) had had a stroke, and 7 (6.8%) had undergone permanent pacemaker implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

The CO technique is feasible and safe and may facilitate more accurate balloon-expandable THV positioning, especially when deep implantation needs to be avoided. Further studies are required to explore potential reduction in atrioventricular conduction block, pacemakers, or paravalvular regurgitation.

Personalised Treatment in Aortic Stenosis: A Patient-Tailored Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Approach

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI) has become a game changer in the management of severe aortic stenosis shifting the concept from inoperable or high-risk patients to intermediate or low surgical-risk individuals. Among devices available nowadays, there is no clear evidence that one device is better than the other or that one device is suitable for all patients. The selection of the optimal TAVI valve for every patient represents a challenging process for clinicians, given a large number of currently available devices. Consequently, understanding the advantages and disadvantages of each valve and personalising the valve selection based on patient-specific clinical and anatomical characteristics is paramount. This review article aims to both analyse the available devices in the presence of specific clinical and anatomic features and offer guidance to select the most suitable valve for a given patient.

Evolving Devices and Material in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: What to Use and for Whom

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the treatment of aortic stenosis, providing a viable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients deemed to be at prohibitive surgical risk, but also for selected patients at intermediate or low surgical risk. Nonetheless, there still exist uncertainties regarding the optimal management of patients undergoing TAVR. The selection of the optimal bioprosthetic valve for each patient represents one of the most challenging dilemmas for clinicians, given the large number of currently available devices. Limited follow-up data from landmark clinical trials comparing TAVR with SAVR, coupled with the typically elderly and frail population of patients undergoing TAVR, has led to inconclusive data on valve durability. Recommendations about the use of one device over another in given each patient’s clinical and procedural characteristics are largely based on expert consensus. This review aims to evaluate the available evidence on the performance of different devices in the presence of specific clinical and anatomic features, with a focus on patient, procedural, and device features that have demonstrated a relevant impact on the risk of poor hemodynamic valve performance and adverse clinical events.