Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of Patient Outcomes Between Leadless vs Transvenous Pacemakers Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.
Ueyama, Hiroki A; Miyamoto, Yoshihisa; Hashimoto, Kenji; Watanabe, Atsuyuki; Kolte, Dhaval; Latib, Azeem; Kuno, Toshiki; Tsugawa, Yusuke.
Afiliação
  • Ueyama HA; Division of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
  • Miyamoto Y; Division of Nephrology and Endocrinology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
  • Hashimoto K; Department of Cardiology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
  • Watanabe A; Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Morningside and West, New York, New York, USA.
  • Kolte D; Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Latib A; Division of Cardiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
  • Kuno T; Division of Cardiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; Division of Cardiology, Jacobi Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. Electronic address: tkuno@montefiore.org.
  • Tsugawa Y; Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA; Department of Health Policy and Management, University of California, Los Angeles Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles,
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39023453
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Evidence is limited regarding the effectiveness of leadless pacemaker implantation for conduction disturbance following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

OBJECTIVES:

This study sought to examine the national trends in the use of leadless pacemaker implantation following TAVR and compare its performance with transvenous pacemakers.

METHODS:

Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged ≥65 years who underwent leadless or transvenous pacemakers following TAVR between 2017 and 2020 were included. Outcomes included in-hospital overall complications as well as midterm (up to 2 years) all-cause death, heart failure hospitalization, infective endocarditis, and device-related complications. Propensity score overlap weighting analysis was used.

RESULTS:

A total of 10,338 patients (730 leadless vs 9,608 transvenous) were included. Between 2017 and 2020, there was a 3.5-fold increase in the proportion of leadless pacemakers implanted following TAVR. Leadless pacemaker recipients had more comorbidities, including atrial fibrillation and end-stage renal disease. After adjusting for potential confounders, patients with leadless pacemakers experienced a lower rate of in-hospital overall complications compared with patients who received transvenous pacemakers (7.2% vs 10.1%; P = 0.014). In the midterm, we found no significant differences in all-cause death (adjusted HR 1.13; 95% CI 0.96-1.32; P = 0.15), heart failure hospitalization (subdistribution HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.74-1.08; P = 0.24), or infective endocarditis (subdistribution HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.44-2.17; P = 0.95) between the 2 groups, but leadless pacemakers were associated with a lower risk of device-related complications (subdistribution HR 0.37; 95% CI 0.21-0.64; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

Leadless pacemakers are increasingly being used for conduction disturbance following TAVR and were associated with a lower rate of in-hospital complications and midterm device-related complications compared to transvenous pacemakers without a difference in midterm mortality.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article