ABSTRACT
Objective: To determine the feasibility of using temporary permanent pacemaker (TPPM) in patients with high-degree atrioventricular block (AVB) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as bridging strategy to reduce avoidable permanent pacemaker implantation. Methods: This is a prospective observational study. Consecutive patients undergoing TAVR at Beijing Anzhen Hospital and the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from August 2021 to February 2022 were screened. Patients with high-degree AVB and TPPM were included. Patients were followed up for 4 weeks with pacemaker interrogation at every week. The endpoint was the success rate of TPPM removal and free from permanent pacemaker at 1 month after TPPM. The criteria of removing TPPM was no indication of permanent pacing and no pacing signal in 12 lead electrocardiogram (EGG) and 24 hours dynamic EGG, meanwhile the last pacemaker interrogation indicated that ventricular pacing rate was 0. Routinely follow-up ECG was extended to 6 months after removal of TPPM. Results: Ten patients met the inclusion criteria for TPPM, aged (77.0±11.1) years, wirh 7 females. There were 7 patients with third-degree AVB, 1 patient with second-degree AVB, 2 patients with first degree AVB with PR interval>240 ms and LBBB with QRS duration>150 ms. TPPM were applied on the 10 patients for (35±7) days. Among 8 patients with high-degree AVB, 3 recovered to sinus rhythm, and 3 recovered to sinus rhythm with bundle branch block. The other 2 patients with persistent third-degree AVB received permanent pacemaker implantation. For the 2 patients with first-degree AVB and LBBB, PR interval shortened to within 200 ms. TPPM was successfully removed in 8 patients (8/10) at 1 month without permanent pacemaker implantation, of which 2 patients recovered within 24 hours after TAVR and 6 patients recovered 24 hours later after TAVR. No aggravation of conduction block or permanent pacemaker indication were observed in 8 patients during follow-up at 6 months. No procedure-related adverse events occurred in all patients. Conclusion: TPPM is reliable and safe to provide certain buffer time to distinguish whether a permanent pacemaker is necessary in patients with high-degree conduction block after TAVR.
Subject(s)
Female , Humans , Atrioventricular Block/therapy , Feasibility Studies , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement , Pacemaker, Artificial , Bundle-Branch BlockABSTRACT
Objectives: To explore the efficacy and safety of emergency transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods: Data of patients who underwent emergency TAVR in eight centers, namely Fuwai Hospital, Wuhan Asia Heart Hospital, Xijing Hospital, Union Hospital Affiliated to Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Zhongshan Hospital Affiliated to Fudan University, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, between May 2017 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The use of mechanical circulatory support system (MCS) and the results of laboratory tests (N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)) and echocardiography (mean aortic valve cross valve pressure difference and left ventricular ejection fraction) before and after operation were collected. The primary endpoint was all-cause death, and the secondary endpoints were stroke, major bleeding, major vascular complications, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation, and acute renal injury. Device success was caculated, which refered to absence of procedural mortality and correct positioning of a single prosthetic heart valve into the proper anatomical location and intended performance of the prosthetic heart valve (mean aortic valve gradient<20 mmHg(1 mmHg=0.133 kPa) or peak velocity<3 m/s, with no moderate or severe prosthetic valve regurgitation). Kaplan-Meier survival curve was used to estimate the survival rate of patients during follow-up. Results: This study included 48 patients. The age was (72.5±8.1) years, and 34 patients were males (70.8%). Device success rate was 91.7% (44/48). The mean aortic valve transvalvular pressure was significantly decreased after operation ((12.3±6.4)mmHg vs. (60.2±23.8)mmHg, P<0.000 1). Left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly increased ((41.5±11.7)% vs. (31.0±11.3)%, P<0.000 1). NT-proBNP significantly decreased (3 492.0 (1 638.8, 7 165.5) ng/L vs. 12 418.5 (6 693.8, 35 000.0) ng/L, P<0.000 1). In-hospital all-cause mortality was 8.3% (4/48). During hospitalization, the rate of stroke was 2.1% (1/48), major bleeding was 6.3% (3/48), major vascular complications was 10.4% (5/48), myocardial infarction was 4.2% (2/48), permanent pacemaker implantation was 6.3% (3/48), and the rate of acute renal injury was 12.5% (6/48). MCS was used in 20 patients (41.7%). The median follow-up time was 196 days. During the follow-up, one patient died (due to systemic metastasis of pancreatic cancer), two cases suffered new myocardial infarction and one case received permanent pacemaker implantation. The survival rate of 30 days, 1 year and 2 years after the operation were 91.7% (44/48), 89.6% (43/48), 89.6% (43/48), respectively. Conclusion: Emergency TAVR may be a safe and effective treatment for patients with severe decompensated aortic valve stenosis.