His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Feasibility and Safety.
AV block
His bundle pacing
TAVR
conduction system pacing
left bundle branch area pacing
Journal
JACC. Clinical electrophysiology
ISSN: 2405-5018
Titre abrégé: JACC Clin Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101656995
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
received:
03
12
2019
revised:
18
02
2020
accepted:
21
02
2020
entrez:
20
6
2020
pubmed:
20
6
2020
medline:
19
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to assess the feasibility and success rates of permanent His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) in patients requiring pacing after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). TAVR is associated with increased risk for atrioventricular block. HPCSP has the potential to reduce electromechanical dyssynchrony associated with right ventricular pacing. The feasibility and safety of HPCSP in this population are unknown. Consecutive patients requiring pacemakers after TAVR in whom His bundle pacing (HBP) and/or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) was attempted at 5 centers were included in the study. Implant success rates, pacing characteristics, QRS duration, and left ventricular ejection fraction were assessed. Any procedure-related complications, lead revisions, heart failure hospitalizations, and deaths were documented. HPCSP was successful in 55 of 65 (85%) patients studied. HBP was successful in 29 of 46 patients (63%), and LBBAP was successful in 26 of 28 (93%) patients in whom it was attempted. HBP was more successful in patients with Sapien valves than in those with CoreValves (69% vs. 44%; p < 0.05). LBBAP was associated with lower pacing thresholds and higher R-wave amplitudes at implantation compared with HBP (0.64 ± 0.3 at 0.5 ms vs. 1.4 ± 0.8 at 1 ms; p < 0.001; 14 ± 8 mV vs. 5.5 ± 5.6 mV; p < 0.001). Pacing thresholds remained stable and left ventricular ejection fraction remained unchanged during a mean follow-up of 12 ± 13.7 months. HPCSP is feasible in the majority of patients requiring pacemakers post-TAVR. Success rates of HBP were lower in patients with CoreValves compared to Sapien valves. LBBAP was associated with higher success rates and lower pacing thresholds compared with HBP.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to assess the feasibility and success rates of permanent His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) in patients requiring pacing after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).
BACKGROUND
TAVR is associated with increased risk for atrioventricular block. HPCSP has the potential to reduce electromechanical dyssynchrony associated with right ventricular pacing. The feasibility and safety of HPCSP in this population are unknown.
METHODS
Consecutive patients requiring pacemakers after TAVR in whom His bundle pacing (HBP) and/or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) was attempted at 5 centers were included in the study. Implant success rates, pacing characteristics, QRS duration, and left ventricular ejection fraction were assessed. Any procedure-related complications, lead revisions, heart failure hospitalizations, and deaths were documented.
RESULTS
HPCSP was successful in 55 of 65 (85%) patients studied. HBP was successful in 29 of 46 patients (63%), and LBBAP was successful in 26 of 28 (93%) patients in whom it was attempted. HBP was more successful in patients with Sapien valves than in those with CoreValves (69% vs. 44%; p < 0.05). LBBAP was associated with lower pacing thresholds and higher R-wave amplitudes at implantation compared with HBP (0.64 ± 0.3 at 0.5 ms vs. 1.4 ± 0.8 at 1 ms; p < 0.001; 14 ± 8 mV vs. 5.5 ± 5.6 mV; p < 0.001). Pacing thresholds remained stable and left ventricular ejection fraction remained unchanged during a mean follow-up of 12 ± 13.7 months.
CONCLUSIONS
HPCSP is feasible in the majority of patients requiring pacemakers post-TAVR. Success rates of HBP were lower in patients with CoreValves compared to Sapien valves. LBBAP was associated with higher success rates and lower pacing thresholds compared with HBP.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32553214
pii: S2405-500X(20)30166-3
doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2020.02.010
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
649-657Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.