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.

302 Impact of right ventricular pacing in patients with TAVI underwent permanent pacemaker implantation: the Pace-TAVI International Multicentre Study

Aims Permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a relevant issue, being more frequent than after surgery and the progressive shift towards low-risk patients stressed the importance to reduce the risk of complications that could impact patient’s long-term prognosis. Long-term right ventricular pacing has been related to an increased risk of electromechanical asynchrony, negative left-ventricular remodelling, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, but there is a lack of evidence regarding the prognostic impact on TAVI patients. The aim of this international multicentre study is to assess the impact of right ventricular pacing on prognosis of TAVI patients undergone pacemaker implantation after the procedure due to conduction disorders. Methods and results All the consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with TAVI and subsequently underwent pacemaker implantation in each participating centre were enrolled. Patients were divided into two subgroups according to the percentage of ventricular pacing (VP cut-off: 40%) at pacemaker interrogation. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization for heart failure in subgroups based on the percentage of ventricular stimulation. All cause and cardiovascular mortality in the subgroups according to the percentage of ventricular pacing were the secondary endpoints. In total, 427 patients were enrolled, 153 patients with VP < 40% and 274 with a with VP ≥ 40%. Patients with VP ≥ 40% were older (81.16 ± 6.4 years vs. 80.51 ± 6.8 years), with higher NYHA class, a lower EF (55.26 ± 12.2 vs. 57.99 ± 11.3 P = 0.03), an increased end diastolic ventricular volume (112.11 ± 47.6 vs. 96.60 ± 40.4, P = 0.005) and diameter (48.89 ± 9.7 vs. 45.84 ± 7.5 P = 0.01). A higher incidence of moderate post-procedural paravalvular leak was observed in patients with VP ≥ 40% (37.5% vs. 26.85%, P = 0.03). Ventricular pacing ≥40% was associated with a higher incidence of the composite primary endpoint of CV mortality and HF hospitalization (p at log rank test = 0.006, adjusted HR: 2.41; 95% CI: 1.03–5.6; P = 0.04). Patients with ventricular pacing ≥ 40% had also a higher risk of all-cause (p at log rank test = 0.03, adjusted HR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.03–2.38; P = 0.03) and cardiovascular (p at log ank test =0.008, adjusted HR: 3.77; CI: 1.32–10.78; P = 0.006) mortality compared to patients with a VP < 40%. Conclusions TAVI Patients underwent permanent pacemaker implantation after the procedure due to conduction disorders and with a VP ≥ 40% at follow-up are at increased risk of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations and of all-cause mortality compared to patients with a VP < 40%. It is mandatory to reduce the percentage of ventricular pacing at follow-up when possible or consider left ventricular branch pacing and biventricular pacing in TAVI patients.

Conduction System Pacing for Post Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Patients: Comparison With Right Ventricular Pacing

Introduction: For patients who develop atrioventricular block (AVB) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), right ventricular pacing (RVP) may be associated with adverse outcomes. We assessed the feasibility of conduction system pacing (CSP) in patients who developed AVB following TAVR and compared the procedural and clinical outcomes with RVP.Methods: Consecutive patients who developed AVB following TAVR were prospectively enrolled, and were implanted with RVP or CSP. Procedural and clinical outcomes were compared among different pacing modalities.Results: A total of 60 patients were enrolled, including 10 who were implanted with His bundle pacing (HBP), 20 with left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), and 30 with RVP. The HBP group had significantly lower implant success rate, higher capture threshold, and lower R-wave amplitude than the LBBP and RVP groups (p < 0.01, respectively). The RVP group had a significantly longer paced QRS duration (153.5 ± 6.8 ms, p < 0.01) than the other two groups (HBP: 121.8 ± 8.6 ms; LBBP: 120.2 ± 10.6 ms). During a mean follow-up of 15.0 ± 9.1 months, the LBBP group had significantly higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (54.9 ± 6.7% vs. 48.9 ± 9.1%, p < 0.05) and shorter left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) (49.7 ± 5.6 mm vs. 55.0 ± 7.7 mm, p < 0.05) than the RVP group. While the HBP group showed trends of higher LVEF (p = 0.016) and shorter LVEDD (p = 0.017) than the RVP group. Four patients in the RVP group died—three deaths were due to progressive heart failure and one was due to non-cardiac reasons. One death in the LBBP group was due to the non-cardiac reasons.Conclusions: CSP achieved shorter paced QRS duration and better cardiac structure and function in post-TAVR patients than RVP. LBBP had a higher implant success rate and better pacing parameters than HBP.

Medium- and Long-Term Lead Stability and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared to Right Ventricular Pacing

The long-term lead stability and echocardiographic outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) are not fully understood. This study aimed to observe the mid-long-term clinical impact of LBBAP compared to right ventricular pacing (RVP). Consecutive bradycardia patients undergoing LBBAP or RVP were enrolled. Pacing and electrophysiological characteristics, echocardiographic measurements, and procedural complications were prospectively recorded at baseline and follow-up. LBBAP was successful in 376 of 406 patients (92.6%), while 313 patients received RVP. During a mean follow-up of 13.6 ± 7.8 months, LBBAP presented with similar pacing parameters and complications to RVP, except a significantly narrower paced QRS duration (115.7 ± 12.3 ms vs. 148.0 ± 18.0 ms, p < 0.001). In 228 patients with ventricular pacing burden >40%, LBBAP at last follow-up resulted in decreased left atrial diameter (LAD) (40.1 ± 8.5 mm vs. 38.5 ± 8.0 mm, p < 0.001) while RVP produced decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (62.7 ± 4.8% vs. 60.5 ± 6.9%, p < 0.001) when compared to baseline. After adjusting for age, the presence of atrial fibrillation, and other clinical factors, LBBAP was still associated with a decrease in LAD (−1.601, 95% CI −3.094–−0.109, p = 0.036). We conclude that LBBAP might result in more preserved echocardiographic outcomes than RVP.

Rapid Ventricular Pacing as a Safe Procedure for Clipping of Complex Ruptured and Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms

Surgical treatment of intracranial aneurysm requires advanced technologies to achieve optimal results. Recently, rapid ventricular pacing (RVP) has been described to be an elegant technique that facilitates clip reconstruction of complex unruptured intracranial aneurysm (uIA). However, there is also a growing need for intraoperative tools to ensure safe clip reconstruction of complex ruptured intracranial aneurysm (rIA). We conducted a retrospective analysis of 17 patients who underwent RVP during surgical reconstruction of complex aneurysms. Nine patients had uIA while eight patients underwent surgery for rIA suffering from consecutive subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Hemodynamic data, critical events, laboratory results, and anesthesia-related complications were evaluated. No complications were reported concerning anesthesia induction and induction times were similar between patients exhibiting uIA or rIA (p = 0.08). RVP induced a significant decline of median arterial pressure (MAP) in both groups (p < 0.0001). However, median MAP before and after RVP was not different in both groups (uIA group: p = 0.27; rIA group: p = 0.18). Furthermore, high-sensitive Troponin T (hsTnT) levels were not increased after RVP in any group. One patient in the rIA group exhibited ventricular fibrillation and required cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but has presented with cardiac arrest due to SAH. Otherwise, no arrhythmias or complications occurred. In summary, our data suggest RVP to be feasible in surgery for ruptured intracranial aneurysms.