The Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement-Conduction Study: The Value of the His-Ventricular Interval in Risk Stratification for Post-TAVR Atrioventricular-Block.

Background: There is no clear consensus regarding the optimal risk stratification of high-degree atrioventricular block (HDAVB) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods: This prospective study sought to determine the utility of the pre- and post-TAVR His-ventricular (HV) interval in the risk stratification of post-TAVR HDAVB. One hundred twenty-one patients underwent an electrophysiology study before and after TAVR. The primary outcome was HDAVB requiring pacemaker implantation within 30 days post-TAVR. A separate retrospective cohort was analyzed to determine the postoperative interval at which the risk of HDAVB is reduced to <5%. Results: HDAVB occurred in 12 (10%) patients. Baseline right bundle branch block (RBBB) (odds ratio [OR]: 13.6), implant depth >4 mm (OR: 3.9), use of mechanically- or self-expanding valves (OR: 6.3), and post-TAVR HV > 65 â€‹ms (OR: 4.9) were associated with increased risk of HDAVB, whereas PR intervals and pre-TAVR HV were not. In patients without baseline RBBB or new persistent left bundle branch block (LBBB), not one patient with post-TAVR HV < 65 â€‹ms developed HDAVB. In the separate retrospective cohort (N = 1049), the risk of HDAVB is reduced (<5%) on postoperative days 4 and 3 in patients with pre-TAVR RBBB and post-TAVR persistent LBBB, respectively. Conclusions: Baseline RBBB, new persistent LBBB, implant depth >4 mm, and a post-TAVR HV ≥ 65 â€‹ms were associated with a higher risk of post-TAVR HDAVB, whereas an HV ≤ 65 â€‹ms was associated with a lower risk. The pre-TAVR HV was not associated with our outcome, and the delta HV did not have practical incremental prognostic value. Among those without pre-TAVR RBBB or post-TAVR persistent LBBB, no patients with post-TAVR HV < 65 â€‹ms developed HDAVB.

Neurologic Complications in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the mainstay of treatment for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Although many TAVR complication rates including mortality and aortic regurgitation have decreased, stroke rates have remained stable for years. TAVR-related strokes are devastating to patients and their families, and very costly for health care systems. The predictors of stroke in TAVR are not yet well defined, although older age, female gender, carotid and peripheral arterial disease, bicuspid aortic valve anatomy, and atrial fibrillation are emerging as risk factors across studies.

Additive Value of Preprocedural Computed Tomography Planning Versus Stand-Alone Transesophageal Echocardiogram Guidance to Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Comparison of Real-World Practice.

Background Transesophageal echocardiogram is currently the standard preprocedural imaging for left atrial appendage occlusion. This study aimed to assess the additive value of preprocedural computed tomography (CT) planning versus stand-alone transesophageal echocardiogram imaging guidance to left atrial appendage occlusion. Methods and Results We retrospectively reviewed 485 Watchman implantations at a single center to compare the outcomes of using additional CT preprocedural planning (n=328, 67.6%) versus stand-alone transesophageal echocardiogram guidance (n=157, 32.4%) for left atrial appendage occlusion. The primary end point was the rate of successful device implantation without major peri-device leak (>5 mm). Secondary end points included major adverse events, total procedural time, delivery sheath and devices used, risk of major peri-device leak and device-related thrombus at follow-up imaging. A single/anterior-curve delivery sheath was used more commonly in those who underwent CT imaging (35.9% versus 18.8%; P<0.001). Additional preprocedural CT planning was associated with a significantly higher successful device implantation rate (98.5% versus 94.9%; P=0.02), a shorter procedural time (median, 45.5 minutes versus 51.0 minutes; P=0.03) and a less frequent change of device size (5.6% versus 12.1%; P=0.01), particularly device upsize (4% versus 9.4%; P=0.02). However, there was no significant difference in the risk of major adverse events (2.1% versus 1.9%; P=0.87). Only 1 significant peri-device leak (0.2%) and 5 device-related thrombi were detected in follow-up (1.2%) with no intergroup difference. Conclusions Additional preprocedural planning using CT in Watchman implantation was associated with a higher successful device implantation rate, a shorter total procedural time, and a less frequent change of device sizes.