Utility of 30-Day Continuous Ambulatory Monitoring to Identify Patients With Delayed Occurrence of Atrioventricular Block After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical injury in the conduction system requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedure is a common complication. The objective of this study was to use ambulatory monitor BodyGuardian to assess late occurrence of atrioventricular block (AVB) after TAVR. METHODS: This prospective study evaluated 365 patients who underwent TAVR at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota between June 2016 and August 2017. Patients who received PPM for bradycardia after TAVR before discharge were considered as the PPM group. Those not requiring PPM received a BodyGuardian system (BodyGuardian group) for 30 days of continuous monitoring. Primary end point was Mobitz II or third-degree atrioventricular block (II/III AVB) at 30-day follow-up. RESULTS: Of 365 patients, 74 who had a PPM or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator before TAVR and 94 who were enrolled in other studies were excluded. Of 197 patients enrolled in the study, 70 (35.5%) received PPM and 127 had BodyGuardian before the hospital dismissal. Eleven of 127 (8.6%) BodyGuardian group required PPM within 30 days after TAVR for late occurrence of symptomatic bradycardia. In total, 33 of 197 (16.7%) patients developed II/III AVB (24 before and 9 after discharge). Thirty-four patients had preexisting right bundle branch block. Of them, 16 (47%) developed II/III AVB. Of 53 patients who developed new left bundle branch block after TAVR, 14% progressed to II/III AVB within 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: In patients without a standard post-TAVR pacing indication, yet a potential risk to develop AVB, a strategy of 30-day monitoring identifies additional patients who require permanent pacing.

Effect of ventricular pacing lead position on tricuspid regurgitation: A randomized prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: Pacing lead-related tricuspid regurgitation (TR), a recognized complication of ventricular pacing lead implantation, may be affected by lead position or diameter. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to determine the effect of ventricular pacing lead position and diameter on pacing lead-related TR. METHODS: A randomized prospective trial compared pacing leads in the right ventricular apex (RVA), right ventricular septum (RVS), or left ventricle via the coronary sinus (LV-CS) in a 1:1:1 fashion. Patients undergoing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead implantation in the RVA (RVA-ICD) were enrolled in a comparison group. Patients with preexisting moderate or greater TR were excluded. Prospective clinical evaluation, transthoracic echocardiograms, and device interrogation occurred 24 hours and 12 months after device implantation. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients undergoing pacemaker implantation were randomized to RVA, RVS, or LV-CS pacing, and 48 RVA-ICD patients were enrolled as a comparison group. At 12 months, 6 patients (6.4%) developed moderate or greater TR. Moderate or greater TR was not significantly different between groups if analyzed by intention to treat (RVA 5.9%, RVS 10.0%, LV-CS 6.7%, and RVA-ICD 4.8%) or if analyzed by final lead location (RVA 4.8%, RVS 10.5%, LV-CS 8.3%, and RVA-ICD 5.1%). Ventricular lead-related complications occurred in 3 patients with right ventricular leads (3.2%) and 2 patients with LV-CS leads (11.1%) (P = .184). CONCLUSION: Neither pacing lead position nor diameter appears to affect TR development significantly. LV-CS leads failed to achieve a statistically significant reduction in TR as compared with right ventricular leads.

Remote ischemic preconditioning immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention does not impact myocardial necrosis, inflammatory response, and circulating endothelial progenitor cell counts: a single center randomized sham controlled trial.

AIMS: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently accompanied by myocardial injury. The present study was performed to determine whether remote ischemic preconditioning (IP) induces cardioprotection during PCI. METHODS: We enrolled 95 patients requiring nonemergency PCI for stable disease or unstable angina into this prospective clinical trial. Patients were randomized to either remote IP (induced by three 3-min cycles of blood pressure cuff inflations to 200 mm Hg around the upper arm, followed by 3-min of reperfusion n = 47) or sham control (n = 48) immediately preceding PCI. The primary outcome measure was the frequency of post-PCI myonecrosis, defined as a peak postprocedural cTnT T ≥ 0.03 ng/dL. Secondary outcome measures were the change in plasma high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels following PCI and in endothelial progenitor cells (EPC) counts following IP. RESULTS: There was no difference in the primary endpoint of the frequency of PCI related myonecrosis which occurred in 22 (47%) and 19 (40%) patients in the remote IP and control groups, respectively, P = 0.42. There was significant increase in hsCRP post-PCI in both groups (P < 0.001), but there was no difference between the groups (median %change in hsCRP 46% vs. 54%, P = 0.73). There was no significant change in circulating early (CD34 -/CD133+/KDR+), intermediate (CD34+/CD133+/KDR+), or late (CD34+/CD133-/KDR+) EPC in the two groups immediately following IP. The composite rate of death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 1 year was 14.1% versus 13.7% (P = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that remote IP immediately before PCI does not induce cardioprotection in low to moderate risk patients.