BACKGROUND: The incidence of conduction disease requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation following aortic valve replacement (AVR) ranges from 3% to 6%. Data concerning the potential risks for PPM requirement associated with certain valve types have been conflicting and controversial. We sought to evaluate the prevalence, predictors for PPM implantation, and PPM dependency during follow-up in patients undergoing AVR. METHODS: A total of 214 consecutive patients undergoing AVR were studied retrospectively. A total of 207 patients were included in the statistical analysis. Clinical variables including valve size and types were catalogued and the incidence of PPM evaluated. Cardiac rhythm device clinic records were examined and PPM dependency status was catalogued. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine predictors of PPM implantation and PPM dependency during follow-up. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (7.2%) required PPM postoperatively. After controlling for clinical and surgical characteristics, predictors for PPM included preoperative first-degree atrioventricular block with and without left anterior fascicular block or intraventricular conduction delay [odd ratios (OR) = 12.5, P = 0.001], cardiac arrest postoperatively (OR = 9.4, P = 0.012), and combined aortic and mitral valve surgery (OR = 11.5, P = 0.027). Aortic valve types did not predict complete heart block (CHB) and PPM implantation. Of those patients who underwent PPM implantation, 70% were classified as PPM dependent during long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: CHB and PPM implantation continue to be common complications of AVR. Preexisting atrioventricular with intrafascicular or intraventricular conduction disease along with cardiac arrest and dual valve surgery are the most important significant predictors of PPM implantation and PPM dependency during follow-up. The selection of valve types did not predict conduction disease requiring PPM implantation.
BACKGROUND: The incidence of conduction disease requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation following aortic valve replacement (AVR) ranges from 3% to 6%. Data concerning the potential risks for PPM requirement associated with certain valve types have been conflicting and controversial. We sought to evaluate the prevalence, predictors for PPM implantation, and PPM dependency during follow-up in patients undergoing AVR. METHODS: A total of 214 consecutive patients undergoing AVR were studied retrospectively. A total of 207 patients were included in the statistical analysis. Clinical variables including valve size and types were catalogued and the incidence of PPM evaluated. Cardiac rhythm device clinic records were examined and PPM dependency status was catalogued. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine predictors of PPM implantation and PPM dependency during follow-up. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (7.2%) required PPM postoperatively. After controlling for clinical and surgical characteristics, predictors for PPM included preoperative first-degree atrioventricular block with and without left anterior fascicular block or intraventricular conduction delay [odd ratios (OR) = 12.5, P = 0.001], cardiac arrest postoperatively (OR = 9.4, P = 0.012), and combined aortic and mitral valve surgery (OR = 11.5, P = 0.027). Aortic valve types did not predict complete heart block (CHB) and PPM implantation. Of those patients who underwent PPM implantation, 70% were classified as PPM dependent during long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: CHB and PPM implantation continue to be common complications of AVR. Preexisting atrioventricular with intrafascicular or intraventricular conduction disease along with cardiac arrest and dual valve surgery are the most important significant predictors of PPM implantation and PPM dependency during follow-up. The selection of valve types did not predict conduction disease requiring PPM implantation.
Authors: J Hunter Mehaffey; Nathan S Haywood; Robert B Hawkins; John A Kern; Nicholas R Teman; Irving L Kron; Leora T Yarboro; Gorav Ailawadi Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Robert M van der Boon; Rutger-Jan Nuis; Nicolas M Van Mieghem; Luc Jordaens; Josep Rodés-Cabau; Ron T van Domburg; Patrick W Serruys; Robert H Anderson; Peter P T de Jaegere Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 32.419