New insights on potential permanent pacemaker predictors in TAVR using the largest self-expandable device.
Atrio-ventricular block
elderly
imaging modalities
transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)
transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)
Journal
Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy
ISSN: 2223-3652
Titre abrégé: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101601613
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
entrez:
31
12
2020
pubmed:
1
1
2021
medline:
1
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Post-procedural conduction disorders following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) still remain frequent, especially using the largest self-expandable device (Medtronic Corevalve Evolut R We performed a dual centre analysis of 130 of 182 consecutive patients treated with STHV-34, further stratified into subjects without post-procedural PPM (-PPM n=100, 76.9%) and those requiring post-procedural PPM (+PPM n=30, 23.1%). These events were further analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis according to several underlying conditions. Multivariate analysis only depicted previous right bundle branch block [RBBB; OR: 11.52 (2.63-50.44), P=0.001] and eccentricity index of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT-EI) >0.3 [OR: 3.07 (1.22-7.77), P=0.018] as highly predictive for PPM-need, being also confirmed by c-statistics [area under the curve (AUC) =0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-0.80; P=0.0025]. There was only moderate correlation of implantation depth over the MSL in terms of PPM prediction (r=0.23; P<0.0001). This study offers new insights into potential PPM predictors using the STHV-34: previous RBBB and a pronounced LVOT-EI were independent predictors of PPM, while most of the previously reported determinants failed to predict PPM-need including MSL and implantation depth.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Post-procedural conduction disorders following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) still remain frequent, especially using the largest self-expandable device (Medtronic Corevalve Evolut R
METHODS
METHODS
We performed a dual centre analysis of 130 of 182 consecutive patients treated with STHV-34, further stratified into subjects without post-procedural PPM (-PPM n=100, 76.9%) and those requiring post-procedural PPM (+PPM n=30, 23.1%). These events were further analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis according to several underlying conditions.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Multivariate analysis only depicted previous right bundle branch block [RBBB; OR: 11.52 (2.63-50.44), P=0.001] and eccentricity index of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT-EI) >0.3 [OR: 3.07 (1.22-7.77), P=0.018] as highly predictive for PPM-need, being also confirmed by c-statistics [area under the curve (AUC) =0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-0.80; P=0.0025]. There was only moderate correlation of implantation depth over the MSL in terms of PPM prediction (r=0.23; P<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study offers new insights into potential PPM predictors using the STHV-34: previous RBBB and a pronounced LVOT-EI were independent predictors of PPM, while most of the previously reported determinants failed to predict PPM-need including MSL and implantation depth.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33381426
doi: 10.21037/cdt-20-680
pii: cdt-10-06-1816
pmc: PMC7758768
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1816-1826Informations de copyright
2020 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/cdt-20-680). Dr. VV, DF, CJ and TZ reports grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from EDWARDS, grants, personal fees, nonfinancial support and other from MEDTRONIC, outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Dec 1;92(7):1374-1379
pubmed: 29521464
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Dec;17(12):1385-1393
pubmed: 26758411
Circulation. 2011 Mar 8;123(9):951-60
pubmed: 21339482
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Nov 26;11(22):2314-2322
pubmed: 30466830
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Jul 1;80(1):128-38
pubmed: 22415849
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Oct;10(10 Pt A):1139-1147
pubmed: 28412434
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Sep 23;12(18):1796-1807
pubmed: 31473236
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Dec;15(12):1324-32
pubmed: 25187618
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Nov 26;11(22):2326-2334
pubmed: 30466832
Europace. 2019 May 1;21(5):787-795
pubmed: 30629159
EuroIntervention. 2018 Jun 08;14(3):e298-e300
pubmed: 29633938
Eur Heart J. 2019 Oct 7;40(38):3143-3153
pubmed: 31329852
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2017 Mar - Apr;11(2):99-104
pubmed: 28209366
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Aug;9(8):964-72
pubmed: 27424244
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2012 Nov-Dec;6(6):366-80
pubmed: 23217460
EuroIntervention. 2018 Jun 08;14(3):e301-e305
pubmed: 29808820
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 15;70(7):845-853
pubmed: 28797353
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 May;17(5):576-84
pubmed: 26160399
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017 Oct 1;52(4):616-664
pubmed: 29156023
Lancet. 2006 Sep 16;368(9540):1005-11
pubmed: 16980116