OBJECTIVES: Permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is required in 3-8% of all patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). Our aim was to evaluate long-term PPM dependency and recovery of atrioventricular (AV) conduction disorders during follow-up in these patients. METHODS: Since January 1997, a total of 2106 consecutive patients underwent isolated AVR at our institution. Of these, 138 patients (6.6%, 72 female, median age 71 (37-89) years) developed significant conduction disorders leading to PPM implantation postoperatively. Preoperative ECG showed normal sinus rhythm (n = 64), first degree AV block (n = 19), left bundle branch block (n = 13), right bundle branch block (n = 16), left anterior hemiblock (n = 14) and AV block with ventricular escape rhythm (n = 10). Atrial fibrillation was present in 23 patients. Pacemakers were implanted after a median of 7 (1-30) days following AVR. PPM dependency was analysed by ECG and pacemaker check during follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 45 of 138 patients with postoperative PPM Implantation died during a mean follow-up time of 5.3 ± 4.7 years. A further 9 patients were lost to follow-up. Long-term survivals at 1, 5 and 10 years were 88%, 79% and 59%, respectively. Only 8 (10%) of 84 survivors were no longer pacemaker-dependent. The majority of patients (n = 66, 79%) required permanent ventricular stimulation, and the remaining 10 (13%) showed intermittent stimulation with a mean ventricular stimulation fraction of 73% (22-98%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients do not recover from AV conduction disorders after AVR. Since higher-grade AV blocks expose patients to a high risk of sudden death after surgery, we recommend early implantation of permanent pacemaker.
OBJECTIVES: Permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is required in 3-8% of all patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). Our aim was to evaluate long-term PPM dependency and recovery of atrioventricular (AV) conduction disorders during follow-up in these patients. METHODS: Since January 1997, a total of 2106 consecutive patients underwent isolated AVR at our institution. Of these, 138 patients (6.6%, 72 female, median age 71 (37-89) years) developed significant conduction disorders leading to PPM implantation postoperatively. Preoperative ECG showed normal sinus rhythm (n = 64), first degree AV block (n = 19), left bundle branch block (n = 13), right bundle branch block (n = 16), left anterior hemiblock (n = 14) and AV block with ventricular escape rhythm (n = 10). Atrial fibrillation was present in 23 patients. Pacemakers were implanted after a median of 7 (1-30) days following AVR. PPM dependency was analysed by ECG and pacemaker check during follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 45 of 138 patients with postoperative PPM Implantation died during a mean follow-up time of 5.3 ± 4.7 years. A further 9 patients were lost to follow-up. Long-term survivals at 1, 5 and 10 years were 88%, 79% and 59%, respectively. Only 8 (10%) of 84 survivors were no longer pacemaker-dependent. The majority of patients (n = 66, 79%) required permanent ventricular stimulation, and the remaining 10 (13%) showed intermittent stimulation with a mean ventricular stimulation fraction of 73% (22-98%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients do not recover from AV conduction disorders after AVR. Since higher-grade AV blocks expose patients to a high risk of sudden death after surgery, we recommend early implantation of permanent pacemaker.
Authors: M H Kim; G M Deeb; K A Eagle; D Bruckman; F Pelosi; H Oral; C Sticherling; R L Baker; S P Chough; K Wasmer; G F Michaud; B P Knight; S A Strickberger; F Morady Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2001-03-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Jan Baan; Ze Yie Yong; Karel T Koch; José P S Henriques; Berto J Bouma; Marije M Vis; Riccardo Cocchieri; Jan J Piek; Bas A J M de Mol Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Rodrigo Bagur; Juan Maria Manazzoni; Éric Dumont; Daniel Doyle; Jean Perron; François Dagenais; Patrick Mathieu; Richard Baillot; Éric Charbonneau; Jacques Metrás; Siamak Mohammadi; Mélanie Côté; François Philippon; Pierre Voisine; Josep Rodés-Cabau Journal: Heart Date: 2011-08-09 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Nicolas M Van Mieghem; Stuart J Head; Wesley de Jong; Ron T van Domburg; Patrick W Serruys; Peter P de Jaegere; Luc Jordaens; Johanna J M Takkenberg; Ad J J C Bogers; Arie-Pieter Kappetein Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Orhan Onalan; Alexander Crystal; Ilan Lashevsky; Vladimir Khalameizer; Ching Lau; Bernard Goldman; Stephen Fremes; David Newman; Maria Lukomsky; Eugene Crystal Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Paolo Nardi; Antonio Pellegrino; Antonio Scafuri; Kyriakos Bellos; Silvia De Propris; Patrizio Polisca; Luigi Chiariello Journal: J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.160
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: Alexander D Simms; Andrew J Hogarth; Elizabeth A Hudson; Victoria L Worsnop; Daniel J Blackman; David J O'Regan; Muzahir H Tayebjee Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2013-04-25
Authors: Ferdinand Vogt; Steffen Pfeiffer; Angelo Maria Dell'Aquila; Theodor Fischlein; Giuseppe Santarpino Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2015-11-27
Authors: Ibrahim Sultan; Keith A Dufendach; Arman Kilic; Valentino Bianco; Forozan Navid; Thomas G Gleason Journal: Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2018-09-12
Authors: Mathew P Doyle; Kei Woldendorp; Martin Ng; Michael P Vallely; Michael K Wilson; Tristan D Yan; Paul G Bannon Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 3.005