RESUMEN
Background: Heart block requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is a relatively frequent complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Objective: The purpose of this study was to perform a contemporary meta-analysis to provide an updated assessment of clinically useful predictors of PPM implantation post-TAVR. Methods: Medline and EMBASE searches were performed to include all studies reporting PPM post-TAVR between 2015 and 2020. Pertinent data were extracted from the studies for further analysis. RevMan was used to create forest plots and calculate risk ratios (RRs). Results: We evaluated 41 variables from 239 studies with a total of 981,168 patients. From this cohort, 17.4% received a PPM following TAVR. Strong predictors for PPM implant were right bundle branch block (RBBB) (RR 3.12; P <.001) and bifascicular block (RR 2.40; P = .002). Intermediate factors were chronic kidney disease (CKD) (RR 1.53; P <.0001) and first-degree atrioventricular block (FDAVB) (RR 1.44; P <.001). Weak factors (RR 1-1.50; P <.05) were male gender, age ≥80 years, body mass index ≥25, diabetes mellitus (DM), atrial fibrillation (AF), and left anterior fascicular block (LAFB). These factors along with increased left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) area (>435 mm2) and/or aortic annulus diameter (>24.4 mm) were incorporated to propose a new scoring system to stratify patients into high- and low-risk groups. Conclusion: Male gender, age ≥80 years, FDAVB, RBBB, AF, DM, CKD, Medtronic CoreValve, transfemoral TAVR, increased LVOT, and aortic annulus diameter were significant predictors of post-TAVR PPM implantation. Preprocedural assessment should consider these factors to guide clinical decision-making before TAVR. Validation of our scoring system is warranted.
RESUMEN
AIMS: Percutaneous mitral balloon valvotomy PMBV is an acceptable alternative to Mitral valve surgery for patients with mitral stenosis. The purpose of this study was to explore the immediate results of PMBV with respect to echocardiographic changes, outcomes, and complications, using a meta-analysis approach. METHODS: MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched (01/2012 to 10/2018) for original research articles regarding the efficacy and safety of PMBV. Two reviewers independently screened references for inclusion and abstracted data including article details and echocardiographic parameters before and 24-72 h after PMBV, follow-up duration, and acute complications. Disagreements were resolved by third adjudicator. Quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale NOS. RESULTS: 44/990 references met the inclusion criteria representing 6537 patients. Our findings suggest that PMBV leads to a significant increase in MVA (MD = 0.81 cm2; 0.76-0.87, p < 0.00001), LVEDP (MD = 1.89 mmHg; 0.52-3.26, p = 0.007), LVEDV EDV (MD = 5.81 ml; 2.65-8.97, p = 0.0003) and decrease in MPG (MD = -7.96 mmHg; -8.73 to -7.20, p < 0.00001), LAP (MD = -10.09 mmHg; -11.06 to -9.12, p < 0.00001), and SPAP (MD = -15.55 mmHg; -17.92 to -13.18, p < 0.00001). On short term basis, the pooled overall incidence estimates of repeat PMBV, mitral valve surgery, post-PMBV severe MR, and post-PMBV stroke, and systemic thromboembolism were 0.5%, 2%, 1.4%, 0.4%, and 0.7%% respectively. On long term basis, the pooled overall incidence estimates of repeat PMBV, mitral valve surgery, post-PMBV severe MR, and post-PMBV stroke, systemic thromboembolism were 5%, 11.5%, 5.5%, 2.7%, and 1.7% respectively. CONCLUSION: PMBV represents a successful approach for patients with mitral stenosis as evidenced by improvement in echocardiographic parameters and low rate of complications.