OBJECTIVES: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established intervention for aortic stenosis. While it is known that the requirement for permanent pacing is higher following CoreValve (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) TAVI than after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), it remains uncertain whether pacing is required in the medium-to-long term. We hypothesized that complete heart block following TAVI is more likely to resolve than that following SAVR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collated data on 528 patients undergoing TAVI or SAVR from May 2008 to December 2010 at a cardiac tertiary referral hospital. Demographic data, timing and indication for pacing post-procedure plus follow-up were recorded. Paced patients were compared and analysed by existing initial indication for pacing. RESULTS: In total, 31 (5.9%) patients received a pacemaker, and there were limited differences between not paced and paced patient characteristics by procedure type. Of these, a greater proportion were implanted post-TAVI compared with SAVR (17 vs 3.2%, P<0.001). The mean time to pacemaker follow-up for TAVI and SAVR was 234 and 188 days, P=0.32, respectively. Fewer patients compared with pacing indication remained in complete heart block at latest follow-up for TAVI (76.5 vs 33.3%, P=0.02) and SAVR (92.9 vs 58.3%, P=0.04). Although, there was a trend towards a greater magnitude of TAVI patients regaining atrioventricular nodal conduction, this did not differ significantly from that seen in SAVR patients. CONCLUSIONS: In keeping with previous reports, this single-centre experience demonstrates that patients undergoing TAVI have higher rates of pacemaker implantation than those following SAVR. However, pacing indication in the short-to-medium term may not persist for all paced patients post-TAVI and -SAVR with the suggestion that a significant proportion recover atrioventricular conduction, which tended to be greatest in TAVI paced patients.
OBJECTIVES: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established intervention for aortic stenosis. While it is known that the requirement for permanent pacing is higher following CoreValve (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) TAVI than after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), it remains uncertain whether pacing is required in the medium-to-long term. We hypothesized that complete heart block following TAVI is more likely to resolve than that following SAVR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collated data on 528 patients undergoing TAVI or SAVR from May 2008 to December 2010 at a cardiac tertiary referral hospital. Demographic data, timing and indication for pacing post-procedure plus follow-up were recorded. Paced patients were compared and analysed by existing initial indication for pacing. RESULTS: In total, 31 (5.9%) patients received a pacemaker, and there were limited differences between not paced and paced patient characteristics by procedure type. Of these, a greater proportion were implanted post-TAVI compared with SAVR (17 vs 3.2%, P<0.001). The mean time to pacemaker follow-up for TAVI and SAVR was 234 and 188 days, P=0.32, respectively. Fewer patients compared with pacing indication remained in complete heart block at latest follow-up for TAVI (76.5 vs 33.3%, P=0.02) and SAVR (92.9 vs 58.3%, P=0.04). Although, there was a trend towards a greater magnitude of TAVI patients regaining atrioventricular nodal conduction, this did not differ significantly from that seen in SAVR patients. CONCLUSIONS: In keeping with previous reports, this single-centre experience demonstrates that patients undergoing TAVI have higher rates of pacemaker implantation than those following SAVR. However, pacing indication in the short-to-medium term may not persist for all paced patients post-TAVI and -SAVR with the suggestion that a significant proportion recover atrioventricular conduction, which tended to be greatest in TAVI paced patients.
Authors: Peter Haworth; Miles Behan; Muhammed Khawaja; Nevil Hutchinson; Adam de Belder; Uday Trivedi; Jean Claude Laborde; David Hildick-Smith Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2010-11-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Nicolo Piazza; Rutger-Jan Nuis; Apostolos Tzikas; Amber Otten; Yoshinobu Onuma; Hector García-García; Carl Schultz; Ron van Domburg; Gerrit-Anne van Es; Robert van Geuns; Peter de Jaegere; Patrick W Serruys Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Ajay Sinhal; Lukas Altwegg; Sanjeevan Pasupati; Karin H Humphries; Michael Allard; Paul Martin; Anson Cheung; Jian Ye; Charles Kerr; Sam V Lichtenstein; John G Webb Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Nicolo Piazza; Yoshinobu Onuma; Emile Jesserun; Peter Paul Kint; Anne-Marie Maugenest; Robert H Anderson; Peter P Th de Jaegere; Patrick W Serruys Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: M Z Khawaja; R Rajani; A Cook; A Khavandi; A Moynagh; S Chowdhary; M S Spence; S Brown; S Q Khan; N Walker; U Trivedi; N Hutchinson; A J De Belder; N Moat; D J Blackman; R D Levy; G Manoharan; D Roberts; S S Khogali; P Crean; S J Brecker; A Baumbach; M Mullen; J-C Laborde; D Hildick-Smith Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-02-21 Impact factor: 29.690
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 A van der Boon; Patrick Houthuizen; Rutger-Jan Nuis; Nicolas M van Mieghem; Frits Prinzen; Peter P T de Jaegere Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 2.931
Authors: Naoki Misumida; Mariah Pagath; Gbolahan O Ogunbayo; Ryan E Wilson; Sun Moon Kim; Ahmed Abdel-Latif; Claude S Elayi Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 2.692