Predicting new-onset persistent conduction disturbance following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the usefulness of FEOPS finite element analysis.
Humans
Male
Female
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
/ adverse effects
Finite Element Analysis
Risk Factors
Aged
Predictive Value of Tests
Aortic Valve
/ surgery
Aged, 80 and over
Risk Assessment
Treatment Outcome
Aortic Valve Stenosis
/ surgery
Arrhythmias, Cardiac
/ physiopathology
Models, Cardiovascular
Retrospective Studies
Action Potentials
Electrocardiography
Heart Conduction System
/ physiopathology
Time Factors
Heart Rate
Heart Valve Prosthesis
Conduction disturbance
FEOPS
TAVI
TAVR
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Journal
BMC cardiovascular disorders
ISSN: 1471-2261
Titre abrégé: BMC Cardiovasc Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968539
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Oct 2024
31 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
14
08
2024
accepted:
25
10
2024
medline:
1
11
2024
pubmed:
1
11
2024
entrez:
1
11
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite the frequency of persistent new-onset conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), few preoperative methods of prediction exist. Patients who underwent TAVR in the Department of Cardiology of the Second Affiliated Hospital of the Army Medical University from December 2020 to September 2021 and postoperative aortic root modeling via the FEOPS finite element analysis were included in this single-center case-control study, divided into persistent conduction disturbances (PCD) and non-PCD groups according to their pre- and postoperative electrocardiograms in the first month. Risk factors affecting PCD were identified by comparing the baseline data of these two groups, including echocardiograms, computed tomography angiography of the aortic root, surgical decision-making, and FEOPS data. Independent risk factors were screened using logistic regression modeling, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to test the predictive ability. A total of 56 patients were included in this study, 37 with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and 19 with trileaflet aortic valve (TAV), with 17 cases of PCD. The contact pressure index (CPI) of FEOPS, valve oversize ratio, differences between membranous interventricular septum length and implantation depth (ΔMSID) and valve implantation depth were statistically different (P < 0.05). CPI could be used as an independent risk factor for PCD (P < 0.05), and the ROC curve comparison showed that the CPI was more predictive (AUC = 0.806, 95% CI: 0.684-0.928, P = 0.001). The CPI of FEOPS has better predictive value for new-onset conduction disturbance after TAVR compared to other known predictors.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Despite the frequency of persistent new-onset conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), few preoperative methods of prediction exist.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients who underwent TAVR in the Department of Cardiology of the Second Affiliated Hospital of the Army Medical University from December 2020 to September 2021 and postoperative aortic root modeling via the FEOPS finite element analysis were included in this single-center case-control study, divided into persistent conduction disturbances (PCD) and non-PCD groups according to their pre- and postoperative electrocardiograms in the first month. Risk factors affecting PCD were identified by comparing the baseline data of these two groups, including echocardiograms, computed tomography angiography of the aortic root, surgical decision-making, and FEOPS data. Independent risk factors were screened using logistic regression modeling, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to test the predictive ability.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 56 patients were included in this study, 37 with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and 19 with trileaflet aortic valve (TAV), with 17 cases of PCD. The contact pressure index (CPI) of FEOPS, valve oversize ratio, differences between membranous interventricular septum length and implantation depth (ΔMSID) and valve implantation depth were statistically different (P < 0.05). CPI could be used as an independent risk factor for PCD (P < 0.05), and the ROC curve comparison showed that the CPI was more predictive (AUC = 0.806, 95% CI: 0.684-0.928, P = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The CPI of FEOPS has better predictive value for new-onset conduction disturbance after TAVR compared to other known predictors.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39482610
doi: 10.1186/s12872-024-04302-2
pii: 10.1186/s12872-024-04302-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
607Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021;143(5):e35–71. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000932 .
doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000932
pubmed: 33332149
Zhang J, Pan Y, Wang B, Fu G. Current opinions on new-onset left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and the search for physiological pacing. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2022;23(3):90. https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2303090 .
doi: 10.31083/j.rcm2303090
pubmed: 35345257
Badertscher P, Mäder N, Serban T, et al. Incidence of infranodal conduction delay in patients with left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Impact of the 2021 ESC guidelines for cardiac pacing. Heart Rhythm. 2023;20(4):646–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.01.019 .
doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.01.019
pubmed: 36693613
Rodés-Cabau J, Ellenbogen KA, Krahn AD, et al. Management of conduction disturbances associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement: JACC scientific expert panel. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74(8):1086–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.07.014 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.07.014
pubmed: 31439219
Mangieri A, Montalto C, Pagnesi M, et al. TAVI and post procedural cardiac conduction abnormalities. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2018;5:85. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2018.00085 .
doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2018.00085
pubmed: 30018969
pmcid: 6038729
Halapas A, Koliastasis L, Doundoulakis I, Antoniou CK, Stefanadis C, Tsiachris D. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation and conduction disturbances: focus on clinical implications. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2023;10(11):469. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd10110469 .
doi: 10.3390/jcdd10110469
pubmed: 37998527
pmcid: 10672026
Sammour Y, Krishnaswamy A, Kumar A, et al. Incidence, predictors, and implications of permanent pacemaker requirement after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14(2):115–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2020.09.063 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.09.063
pubmed: 33478630
Zahid S, Khan MZ, Ullah W, et al. In-hospital outcomes of TAVR patients with a bundle branch block: Insights from the National Inpatient Sample 2011–2018. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;100(3):424–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30341 .
doi: 10.1002/ccd.30341
pubmed: 35842779
Halim J, Brouwer J, Lycke M, Swaans MJ, Van der Heyden J. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: impact of pre-procedural FEops HEARTguide assessment on device size selection in borderline annulus size cases. Neth Heart J Mon J Neth Soc Cardiol Neth Heart Found. 2021;29(12):654–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-021-01620-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s12471-021-01620-4
Rocatello G, El Faquir N, De Santis G, et al. Patient-specific computer simulation to elucidate the role of contact pressure in the development of new conduction abnormalities after catheter-based implantation of a self-expanding aortic valve. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11(2):e005344. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.005344 .
doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.005344
pubmed: 29386188
Maiani S, Nardi G, Di Mario C, Meucci F. Patient-specific computer simulation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with previous mechanical mitral prosthesis: a case series. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2024;103(5):792–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30984 .
doi: 10.1002/ccd.30984
pubmed: 38407449
Hokken TW, Wienemann H, Dargan J, et al. Clinical value of CT-derived simulations of transcatheter-aortic-valve-implantation in challenging anatomies the PRECISE-TAVI trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Off J Soc Card Angiogr Interv. 2023;102(6):1140–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30816 .
doi: 10.1002/ccd.30816
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation and cardiac conduction abnormalities: prevalence, risk factors and management. https://www.pmop.cn/pubmed/37762995 . Accessed 26 Sept 2024.
Leone A, Castiello DS, Angellotti D, et al. Incidence, predictors, and prognostic impact of temporary left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Electrocardiol. 2022;74:114–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2022.09.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2022.09.005
pubmed: 36183520
Gupta R, Mahajan S, Behnoush AH, et al. Short- and long-term clinical outcomes following permanent pacemaker insertion post-TAVR: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15(16):1690–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2022.06.028 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2022.06.028
pubmed: 35981849
Chang S, Liu X, Lu ZN, et al. Feasibility study of temporary permanent pacemaker in patients with conduction block after TAVR. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.978394 .
VARC-3 WRITING COMMITTEE, Généreux P, Piazza N, et al. Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77(21):2717– 2746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.02.038 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.02.038
Liu X, Fan J, Mortier P, et al. Sealing behavior in transcatheter bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves replacement through patient-specific computational modeling. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.732784 .
Kalra A, Das R, Alkhalil M, et al. Bicuspid aortic valve disease: classifications, treatments, and emerging transcatheter paradigms. Struct Heart J Heart Team. 2024;8(1):100227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shj.2023.100227 .
doi: 10.1016/j.shj.2023.100227
Chen YH, Chang HH, Liao TW, et al. Membranous septum length predicts conduction disturbances following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022;164(1):42–51.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.07.072 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.07.072
pubmed: 32891451
Chandra S, Lang RM, Nicolarsen J, et al. Bicuspid aortic valve: inter-racial difference in frequency and aortic dimensions. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5(10):981–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2012.07.008 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2012.07.008
pubmed: 23058064
Abdelshafy M, Elkoumy A, Elzomor H, et al. Predictors of conduction disturbances requiring new permanent pacemaker implantation following transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the evolut series. J Clin Med. 2023;12(14):4835. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12144835 .
doi: 10.3390/jcm12144835
pubmed: 37510950
Brown JA, Lee JH, Smith MA, et al. Patient-specific immersed finite element-difference model of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Ann Biomed Eng. 2023;51(1):103–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-022-03047-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s10439-022-03047-3
pubmed: 36264408
Dowling C, Bavo AM, Faquir NE, et al. Patient-specific computer simulation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve morphology. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.119.009178 . Published online October 2019.
Dargan J, Kenawi A, Khan F, Firoozi S, Brecker S. Patient-specific computer modeling to guide redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;16(18):2332–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2023.07.034 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2023.07.034
pubmed: 37758388
Dowling C, Gooley R, McCormick L, et al. Ongoing experience with patient-specific computer simulation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve. Cardiovasc Revascularization Med Mol Interv. 2023;51:31–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2023.01.015 .
doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2023.01.015
Chen BY, Huang TF, Jiang XD, Ding XY, Zhou XF. Predictors and clinical outcomes of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2024;24(1):448. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-024-04101-9 .
doi: 10.1186/s12872-024-04101-9
pubmed: 39182065
pmcid: 11344446
Qi Y, Ding Y, Pan W, et al. Mean compression ratio of a self-expandable valve is associated with the need for pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Eur J Med Res. 2024;29(1):85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-023-01070-1 .
doi: 10.1186/s40001-023-01070-1
pubmed: 38287454
pmcid: 10826074
Auffret V, Puri R, Urena M, et al. Conduction Disturbances After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Circulation. 2017;136(11):1049–69. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.028352 .
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.028352
pubmed: 28893961
Li YM, Xiong TY, Xu K, et al. Characteristics and outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in China: a report from China aortic valve transcatheter replacement registry (CARRY). Chin Med J (Engl). 2021;134(22):2678–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000001882 .
doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000001882
pubmed: 34802024
Kawashima T, Sasaki H. A macroscopic anatomical investigation of atrioventricular bundle locational variation relative to the membranous part of the ventricular septum in elderly human hearts. Surg Radiol Anat SRA. 2005;27(3):206–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-004-0302-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s00276-004-0302-7
pubmed: 15723154
Chang S, Jiang Z, Liu X, et al. Permanent pacemaker reduction using temporary-permanent pacemaker as a 1-month bridge after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a prospective, multicentre, single-arm, observational study. EClinicalMedicine. 2024;72:102603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102603 .
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102603
pubmed: 39010979
pmcid: 11247154