Pacemaker memory in post-TAVI patients: Who should benefit from permanent pacemaker implantation?

Types of Complications and Associated Factors in Patients Undergoing Permanent Cardiac Pacemaker Implantation: A Systematic Review

Background

Permanent Pacemaker (PPM) implantation is essential in treating cardiac arrhythmias and conduction disorders, especially in patients with heart failure. Although PPM has been proven to improve quality of life and prolong life expectancy in patients with cardiac conduction disorders, post implantation complications still often occur.

Purpose

This study aimed to identify types of complications and associated predictors in patients undergoing PPM implantation.

Methods

This review used a systematic review design and follows the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). The database used was PubMed, CINAHL: Medline Ultimate, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and search engines: Google Scholar. Articles with observational designs and RCTs in English were included without limitation of publication year.

Results

This review analyzed 15 articles. The analysis showed that there are five categories of factors which influences the incidence of complications in patients after PPM implantation: demographic, pre-existing clinical, comorbid disease, procedural, operator experience, and activity factors. The complications that are most frequently reported are generator erosion, pacemaker infection, pneumothorax, atrial lead displacement, battery depletion, and even death after PPM implantation.

Conclusion

There are many incidents of complications and factors that influence complications in patients after PPM placement. The reported complications underscore the importance of careful patient selection and procedure execution to minimize risks. Healthcare providers should emphasize patients with risk factors to provide targeted monitoring and management. Integrating a multidisciplinary approach involving cardiologists, nephrologists, surgeons, and the nursing team is essential to optimizing patient care and improving clinical outcomes.

Conduction dynamics over time after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: An expert review

New conduction disorders remain a frequent complication in current transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) era. Left bundle branch block (LBBB) occurs early in about 20-30 % of TAVR-patients, persists at 1 month in about 35-45 % of cases and will likely remain thereafter. Third-degree atrioventricular block (AV3B) affects approximately 15 % of patients. Pacemaker dependency gradually decreases throughout follow-up and approximately 25-35 % of patients remain pacemaker dependent at one year. We aimed to review what is currently known about the dynamics of acquired conduction disorders, including extraction of predictors, and how to interpret these dynamics in light of an early discharge policy.

Pacemaker Implantation for Low-Grade Conduction Abnormalities After Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

INTRODUCTION

A frequent complication after TAVI are postinterventional conduction abnormalities requiring permanent pacemaker implantation. In this study, we analyzed the characteristics of borderline conduction abnormalities leading to pacemaker implantation and the resulting ventricular pacing amounts.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All patients who underwent balloon-expandable TAVI between 2014 and 2019 in our tertiary center were analyzed in a retrospective manner. One hundred and sixty-five patients of 1083 TAVI-patients developed postinterventional conduction abnormalities leading to pacemaker implantation. Of these 19 (11.5%) did not represent a clear indication for cardiac pacing according to current European guidelines. Patient characteristics, underlying conduction abnormalities, and the temporal change of ventricular pacing percentages at 24 h and 6 weeks after pacemaker implantation were analyzed. The dominating borderline conduction abnormalities leading to pacemaker implantation were new-onset persisting bundle-branch-blocks and new first-degree AV-blocks with progression of AV-delay. While pacemaker implantation was safe and without severe complications in all cases, only 6 of 19 patients had high pacing amounts (95%-100%) after 24 h while 11 patients had low to no pacing amounts (0%-5%). After 6 weeks, 8 patients showed decreasing pacing amounts, no patient had an increasing amount of ventricular pacing and all patients had an intrinsic ventricular rhythm > 30/min.

CONCLUSION

In our cohort of 1038 TAVI patients, 19 patients underwent PMI for borderline CAs (11.5% of all PMI). Of these, only 2 patients had high pacing amounts after 6 weeks. The risk of complete persisting heart block in these patients is very low. Furthermore, algorithms to reduce ventricular pacing are highly effective to avoid ventricular pacing whenever reasonable.

Permanent pacemaker dependency in patients with new left bundle branch block and new first degree atrioventricular block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Conduction disorders with need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation remain frequent complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Up to 22% of PPM after TAVI are implanted for new onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) and atrioventricular block (AVB) I. However, clinical benefit and predictors of ventricular pacing in TAVI patients receiving PPM for this indication remain unclear. We retrospectively evaluated pacemaker interrogation data of patients who received a PPM post TAVI for new LBBB and new AVB I. The primary endpoint of this study was relevant ventricular pacing (ventricular pacing rate: Vp ≥ 1%) at the first outpatient pacemaker interrogation. Secondary endpoints were predictors for relevant ventricular pacing. At the first pacemaker interrogation (median follow up at 6.23 [2.8–14.8] months), median ventricular pacing frequency was 1.0% [0.1–17.8]. Out of 61 patients, 36 (59%) had Vp rates ≥ 1%. Patients with frequent ventricular pacing showed longer QRS duration (155 ms ± 17 ms vs. 144 ms ± 18 ms, p = 0.018) at the time of PPM implantation and were less likely treated with a balloon-expandable Edwards Sapiens Valve (39% vs. 12%, p = 0.040). Our findings suggest that the majority of patients with new LBBB and new AVB I after TAVI show relevant ventricular pacing rates at follow up. Further prospective studies are necessary to identify patients at higher risk of pacemaker dependency.

Non-invasive predictors for infranodal conduction delay in patients with left bundle branch block after TAVR

AIMS

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is the most common conduction disorder after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with an increased risk of atrioventricular (AV) block. The aim of the current study was to identify non-invasive predictors for infranodal conduction delay in patients with LBBB.

METHODS

We analyzed consecutive patients undergoing TAVR with pre-existing or new-onset LBBB between August 2014 and August 2020. His ventricular (HV) interval measurement was performed on day 1 after TAVR. Baseline, procedural, as well as surface and intracardiac electrocardiographic parameters were included. Infranodal conduction delay was defined as HV interval > 55 ms.

RESULTS

Of 825 patients screened after TAVR, 151 patients (82 ± 6 years, 39% male) with LBBB were included. Among these, infranodal conduction delay was observed in 25%. ΔPR (difference in PR interval after and before TAVR), PR and QRS duration after TAVR were significantly longer in the group with HV prolongation. In a multivariate analysis in patients with sinus rhythm (n = 123), ΔPR (OR per 10 ms increase: 1.52; 95%CI: 1.19-2.01; p = 0.002) was the only independent factor associated with infranodal conduction delay. A change in PR interval by 20 ms yielded a specificity of 83% and a sensitivity of 46%, with a negative predictive value of 84% and a positive predictive value of 45% to predict HV prolongation.

CONCLUSIONS

Simple analysis of surface ECG and a calculated ΔPR < 20 ms can be used as predictor for the absence of infranodal conduction delay in post-TAVR patients with LBBB.

One-year pacing dependency after pacemaker implantation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Atrioventricular conductions disturbances, requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), represent a potential complication after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), However, little is known about the pacemaker dependency after PPI in this patient setting. This systematic review analyses the incidence of PPI, the short-term (1-year) pacing dependency, and predictors for such a state after TAVI.

Methods

We performed a systematic search in PUBMED, EMBASE, and MEDLINE to identify potentially relevant literature investigating PPI requirement and dependency after TAVI. Study data, patients, and procedural characteristics were extracted. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals were extracted.

Results

Data from 23 studies were obtained that included 18,610 patients. The crude incidence of PPI after TAVI was 17% (range, 8.8%-32%). PPI occurred at a median time of 3.2 days (range, 0-30 days). Pacing dependency at 1-year was 47.5% (range, 7%-89%). Self-expandable prosthesis (pooled OR was 2.14 [1.15-3.96]) and baseline right bundle branch block (pooled OR was 2.01 [1.06-3.83]) showed 2-fold greater risk to maintain PPI dependency at 1 year after TAVI.

Conclusions

Although PPI represents a rather frequent event after TAVI, conduction disorders have a temporary nature in almost 50% of the cases with recovery and stabilization after discharge. Preoperative conduction abnormality and type of TAVI are associated with higher PPI dependency at short term.

Evolution of high-grade atrioventricular conduction disorders after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients who underwent implantation of a pacemaker with specific mode-that minimizes ventricular pacing-activated

INTRODUCTION

The evolution of atrioventricular conduction disorders after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains poorly understood. We sought to identify factors associated with late (occurring ≥7 days after the procedure) high-grade atrioventricular blocks after TAVI, based on specific pacemaker memory data.

METHODS AND RESULTS

STIM-TAVI (NCT03338582) was a prospective, multicentre, observational study that enrolled all patients (from November 2015 to January 2017) implanted with a specific dual chamber pacemaker after TAVI, with the SafeR algorithm activated, allowing continuous monitoring of atrioventricular conduction. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of centrally adjudicated late high-grade atrioventricular blocks during the year after TAVI. Among 197 patients, 138 (70.1%) had ≥1 late high-grade atrioventricular block. Whereas oversizing (p = .005), high-grade atrioventricular block during TAVI (p < .001), and early (within 6 days) high-grade atrioventricular block (p < .001) were associated with occurrence of late high-grade atrioventricular block, self-expanding prothesis (p = .88), prior right bundle branch block (p = .45), low implantation (p = .06), and new or wider left bundle branch block and lengthening of PR interval (p = .24) were not. In multivariable analysis, only post-TAVI early high-grade atrioventricular block remained associated with late high-grade atrioventricular blocks (Days 0-1: odds ratio [OR], 3.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-6.74; p = .001; Days 2-6: OR, 4.13; 95% CI, 2.06-8.31; p < .001), whereas other conventionally used predictors were not.

CONCLUSION

One-third of pacemaker-implanted patients do not experience late high-grade atrioventricular block. Our findings suggest that post-TAVI early high-grade atrioventricular block is the main factor associated with occurrence of late high-grade atrioventricular blocks.

Analysis of length of stay after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: results from the FRANCE TAVI registry

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are no recommendations regarding the minimum duration of in-hospital monitoring after transfemoral (TF) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and practices are extremely heterogeneous. We, therefore, aimed to evaluate length of stay (LOS) and predictive factors for late discharge after TF TAVR using data from the FRANCE TAVI registry.

METHODS

TAVR was performed in 12,804 patients in 48 French centers between 2013 and 2015. LOS was evaluated in 5857 TF patients discharged home. LOS was calculated from TAVR procedure (day 0) to discharge. The study population was divided into three groups based on LOS values. Patients discharged within 3 days constituted the "very early" discharge group, patients with a LOS between 3 and 6 days constituted the "early" discharge group, and patients with a length of stay > 6 days constituted the "late" discharge group.

RESULTS

The median LOS was 7 (5-9) days and was extremely variable among centers. The proportion of patients discharged very early, early, and late was 4.4% (n = 256), 33.7% (n = 1997), and 61.9% (n = 3624) respectively. Variables associated with late discharge were female sex, co-morbidities, major complications, self-expandable valve, general anesthesia, and a significant center effect. In contrast, history of previous pacemaker was a protective factor. The composite of death and re-admission in the very early and early versus late discharge groups was similar at 30 days (3.3% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

LOS is extremely variable after TF TAVR in France. Co-morbidities and complications were predictive factors of late discharge after TAVI. Interestingly, the use of self-expandable prosthesis and general anesthesia may also contribute to late discharge. Our results confirm that early discharge is safe.

Management of Conduction Disturbances Associated With Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: JACC Scientific Expert Panel

Despite major improvements in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) periprocedural complications in recent years, the occurrence of conduction disturbances has not decreased over time and remains the most frequent complication of the procedure. Additionally, there has been an important lack of consensus on the management of these complications, which has indeed translated into a high degree of uncertainty regarding the most appropriate treatment of a large proportion of such patients along with major differences between centers and studies in pacemaker rates post-TAVR. There is therefore an urgent need for a uniform strategy regarding the management of conduction disturbances after TAVR. The present expert consensus scientific panel document has been formulated by a multidisciplinary group of interventional cardiologists, electrophysiologists, and cardiac surgeons as an initial attempt to provide a guide for the management of conduction disturbances after TAVR based on the best available data and group expertise.