Lead management in patients undergoing percutaneous tricuspid valve replacement or repair: a 'heart team' approach.

Clinically significant tricuspid regurgitation (TR) has historically been managed with either medical therapy or surgical interventions. More recently, percutaneous trans-catheter tricuspid valve (TV) replacement and tricuspid trans-catheter edge-to-edge repair have emerged as alternative treatment modalities. Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have an increased incidence of TR. Severe TR in this population can occur for multiple reasons but most often results from the interactions between the CIED lead and the TV apparatus. Management decisions in patients with CIED leads and clinically significant TR, who are undergoing evaluation for a percutaneous TV intervention, need careful consideration as a trans-venous lead extraction (TLE) may both worsen and improve TR severity. Furthermore, given the potential risks of 'jailing' a CIED lead at the time of a percutaneous TV intervention (lead fracture and risk of subsequent infections), consideration should be given to performing a TLE prior to a percutaneous TV intervention. The purpose of this 'state-of-the-art' review is to provide an overview of the causes of TR in patients with CIEDs, discuss the available therapeutic options for patients with TR and CIED leads, and advocate for including a lead management specialist as a member of the 'heart team' when making treatment decisions in patients TR and CIED leads.

The utility and impact of outpatient telemetry monitoring in post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients.

BACKGROUND: Conduction disturbances are a common complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Mobile Cardiac Telemetry (MCT) allows for continuous monitoring with near "real time" alerts and has allowed for timely detection of conduction abnormalities and pacemaker placement in small trials. A standardized, systematic approach utilizing MCT devices post TAVR has not been widely implemented, leading to variation in use across hospital systems. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to evaluate the utility of a standardized, systematic approach utilizing routine MCT to facilitate safe and earlier discharge by identifying conduction disturbances requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) placement. We also sought to assess the occurrence of actionable arrhythmias in post-TAVR patients. METHODS: Using guidance from the JACC Scientific Expert Panel, a protocol was implemented starting in December 2019 to guide PPM placement post-TAVR across our health system. All patients who underwent TAVR from December 2019 to June 2021 across four hospitals within Northwell Health, who did not receive or have a pre-existing PPM received an MCT device at discharge and were monitored for 30 days. Clinical and follow-up data were collected and compared to pre initiative patients. RESULTS: During the initiative 693 patients were monitored with MCT upon discharge, 21 of whom required PPM placement. Eight of these patients had no conduction abnormality on initial or discharge ECG. 59 (8.6 %) patients were found to have new atrial fibrillation or flutter via MCT monitoring. There were no adverse events in the initiative group. Prior to the initiative, 1281 patients underwent TAVR over a one-year period. The initiative group had significantly shorter length of stay than pre-initiative patients (2.5 ± 4.5 vs 3.0 ± 3.8 days, p < 0.001) and lower overall PPM placement rate within 30 days post-TAVR (16 % vs 20.5 %, P = 0.0125). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, implementation of a standardized, systematic approach utilizing MCT in post-TAVR patients was safe and allowed for timely detection of conduction abnormalities requiring pacemaker placement. This strategy also detected new atrial fibrillation and flutter. Reduction in post TAVR pacemaker rate and length of stay were also noted although this effect is multifactorial.

3-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Randomized data comparing outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgery in low-surgical risk patients at time points beyond 2 years is limited. This presents an unknown for physicians striving to educate patients as part of a shared decision-making process. OBJECTIVES: The authors evaluated 3-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes from the Evolut Low Risk trial. METHODS: Low-risk patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular valve or surgery. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke and several secondary endpoints were assessed at 3 years. RESULTS: There were 1,414 attempted implantations (730 TAVR; 684 surgery). Patients had a mean age of 74 years and 35% were women. At 3 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 7.4% of TAVR patients and 10.4% of surgery patients (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.49-1.00; P = 0.051). The difference between treatment arms for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke remained broadly consistent over time: -1.8% at year 1; -2.0% at year 2; and -2.9% at year 3. The incidence of mild paravalvular regurgitation (20.3% TAVR vs 2.5% surgery) and pacemaker placement (23.2% TAVR vs 9.1% surgery; P < 0.001) were lower in the surgery group. Rates of moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation for both groups were <1% and not significantly different. Patients who underwent TAVR had significantly improved valve hemodynamics (mean gradient 9.1 mm Hg TAVR vs 12.1 mm Hg surgery; P < 0.001) at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Within the Evolut Low Risk study, TAVR at 3 years showed durable benefits compared with surgery with respect to all-cause mortality or disabling stroke. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients; NCT02701283).