Immediate and long-term need for permanent cardiac pacing following aortic valve replacement.

Introduction: Atrioventricular (AV) node conduction disturbances are common following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), and in some cases the patient needs a permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation before discharge from hospital. Little is known about the long-term need for PPM and the PPM dependency of these individuals. We determined the incidence of PPM implantation before and after discharge in SAVR patients. Methods: We studied 557 consecutive patients who underwent SAVR for aortic stenosis in Iceland between 2002 and 2016. Timing and indication for PPM were registered, with a new concept, ventricular pacing proportion (VPP), defined as ventricular pacing ≥90% of the time, being used to approximate pacemaker dependency. The median follow-up time was 73 months. We plotted the cumulative incidence of pacemaker implantation, treating death as a competing risk. Results: Of the 557 patients, 22 (3.9%) received PPM in the first 30 days after surgery, most commonly for complete AV block (n = 14) or symptomatic bradycardia (n = 8); Thirty-eight other patients (6.8%) had a PPM implanted >30 days postoperatively, at a median of 43 months after surgery (range 0‒181), most often for AV block (n = 13) or sick-sinus syndrome (n = 10). The cumulative incidence of PPM implantation at 1, 5, and 10 years postoperatively was 5.0%, 9.2%, and 12.3%, respectively. During follow-up, 45.0% of the 60 patients had VPP ≥90%. Conclusion: The cumulative incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation following SAVR was about 12% at 10 years, with every other patient having VPP ≥90% during follow-up. This suggests that AV node conduction disturbances extend significantly beyond the perioperative period.

Survival after aortic root replacement with a stentless xenograft is determined by patient characteristics.

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to examine intermediate-term survival and reinterventions in unselected patients, stratified according to indication, who received a Freestyle (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) bioprosthesis as a full aortic root replacement. METHODS: Data from medical records were retrospectively collected for patients who had aortic root replacement using Freestyle bioprostheses between 1999 and 2018 at 6 North-Atlantic centers. Survival status was extracted from national registries and results stratified according to indication for surgery. RESULTS: We included 1030 implantations in 1008 patients with elective indications for surgery: aneurysm (39.8%), small root (8.3%), and other (13.8%), and urgent/emergent indications: endocarditis (26.7%) and Stanford type A aortic dissection (11.4%). Across indications, 46.3% were nonelective cases and 34.0% were reoperations. Median age was 66.0 (interquartile range, 58.0-71.8) years and median follow-up was 5.0 (interquartile range, 2.6-7.9) years. Thirty-day mortality varied from 2.9% to 27.4% depending on indication. Intermediate survival for 90-day survivors with elective indications were not different from the general population standardized for age and sex (P = .95, .83, and .16 for aneurysms, small roots, and other, respectively). In contrast, patients with endocarditis and type A dissection had excess mortality (P < .001). Freedom from valve reinterventions was 95.0% and 94.4% at 5 and 8 years, respectively. In all, 52 patients (5.2%) underwent reinterventions, most because of endocarditis. CONCLUSIONS: At intermediate term follow-up this retrospective study provides further support for the use of the Freestyle bioprosthesis in the real-world setting of diverse, complex, and often high-risk aortic root replacement and suggests that outcome is determined by patient and disease, rather than by prosthesis, characteristics.