BACKGROUND: Left ventricular conduction disturbances (VCD) with or without need for pacemaker (PM) implantation are common after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Its effect on patients' functional recovery after TAVR is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: 212 patients (Age 80.8 ± 6.4 years, logEuroscore 28.95 ± 17.37 %) underwent TAVR with the self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis and completed 9-month follow-up (FU). After TAVR 125 (59 %) patients were diagnosed with VCD. This group consists of 41 (19 %) patients with a new PM after TAVR, 33 (16 %) patients with PM prior TAVR and markedly increased ventricular stimulation rate, 48 (23 %) patients with new LBBB post-TAVR and three (1 %) patients with LBBB prior TAVR. After FU, the presence of VCD alone was associated with worse recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (VCD: LVEFbaseline 51.7 ± 18.2 %, LVEFFU 53.9 ± 13.0 %; p = 0.8; noVCD: LVEFbaseline 53.8 ± 12.9 %, LVEFFU 63.4 ± 10.1 %; p < 0.01) but had no impact on functional outcomes after TAVR (p > 0.05). Especially patients with VCD caused by permanent RV pacing showed worse functional outcomes presenting with higher functional NYHA classes (p < 0.05), and higher NT-proBNP levels (p < 0.05). 20.4 % of patients with need for PM after TAVR remained in NYHA class ≥3, as compared to 5 % of patients without PM (VCD but no PM: 4.7 %, p < 0.001; noVCD: 5.3 %, p < 0.001). VCD with or without need for PM had no impact on survival after FU. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of VCD after TAVR is common and associated with unfavorable left ventricular functional recovery. However, only the combination of VCD with permanent right ventricular pacing has adverse impact on heart failure-related symptoms after TAVR.
BACKGROUND:Left ventricular conduction disturbances (VCD) with or without need for pacemaker (PM) implantation are common after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Its effect on patients' functional recovery after TAVR is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: 212 patients (Age 80.8 ± 6.4 years, logEuroscore 28.95 ± 17.37 %) underwent TAVR with the self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis and completed 9-month follow-up (FU). After TAVR 125 (59 %) patients were diagnosed with VCD. This group consists of 41 (19 %) patients with a new PM after TAVR, 33 (16 %) patients with PM prior TAVR and markedly increased ventricular stimulation rate, 48 (23 %) patients with new LBBB post-TAVR and three (1 %) patients with LBBB prior TAVR. After FU, the presence of VCD alone was associated with worse recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (VCD: LVEFbaseline 51.7 ± 18.2 %, LVEFFU 53.9 ± 13.0 %; p = 0.8; noVCD: LVEFbaseline 53.8 ± 12.9 %, LVEFFU 63.4 ± 10.1 %; p < 0.01) but had no impact on functional outcomes after TAVR (p > 0.05). Especially patients with VCD caused by permanent RV pacing showed worse functional outcomes presenting with higher functional NYHA classes (p < 0.05), and higher NT-proBNP levels (p < 0.05). 20.4 % of patients with need for PM after TAVR remained in NYHA class ≥3, as compared to 5 % of patients without PM (VCD but no PM: 4.7 %, p < 0.001; noVCD: 5.3 %, p < 0.001). VCD with or without need for PM had no impact on survival after FU. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of VCD after TAVR is common and associated with unfavorable left ventricular functional recovery. However, only the combination of VCD with permanent right ventricular pacing has adverse impact on heart failure-related symptoms after TAVR.
Authors: Alexander Sedaghat; Jan-Malte Sinning; Mariuca Vasa-Nicotera; Alexander Ghanem; Christoph Hammerstingl; Eberhard Grube; Georg Nickenig; Nikos Werner Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2013-07-23 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Neil E Moat; Peter Ludman; Mark A de Belder; Ben Bridgewater; Andrew D Cunningham; Christopher P Young; Martyn Thomas; Jan Kovac; Tom Spyt; Philip A MacCarthy; Olaf Wendler; David Hildick-Smith; Simon W Davies; Uday Trivedi; Daniel J Blackman; Richard D Levy; Stephen J D Brecker; Andreas Baumbach; Tim Daniel; Huon Gray; Michael J Mullen Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Craig R Smith; Martin B Leon; Michael J Mack; D Craig Miller; Jeffrey W Moses; Lars G Svensson; E Murat Tuzcu; John G Webb; Gregory P Fontana; Raj R Makkar; Mathew Williams; Todd Dewey; Samir Kapadia; Vasilis Babaliaros; Vinod H Thourani; Paul Corso; Augusto D Pichard; Joseph E Bavaria; Howard C Herrmann; Jodi J Akin; William N Anderson; Duolao Wang; Stuart J Pocock Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Corrado Tamburino; Davide Capodanno; Angelo Ramondo; Anna Sonia Petronio; Federica Ettori; Gennaro Santoro; Silvio Klugmann; Francesco Bedogni; Francesco Maisano; Antonio Marzocchi; Arnaldo Poli; David Antoniucci; Massimo Napodano; Marco De Carlo; Claudia Fiorina; Gian Paolo Ussia Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Alain Cribier; Helene Eltchaninoff; Assaf Bash; Nicolas Borenstein; Christophe Tron; Fabrice Bauer; Genevieve Derumeaux; Frederic Anselme; François Laborde; Martin B Leon Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-12-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Carly Jenkins; Kristen Bricknell; Jonathan Chan; Lizelle Hanekom; Thomas H Marwick Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Birgid Gonska; Julia Seeger; Mirjam Keßler; Alexander von Keil; Wolfgang Rottbauer; Jochen Wöhrle Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Cláudio Monteiro; Andres Di Leoni Ferrari; Paulo Ricardo Avancini Caramori; Luiz Antonio Ferreira Carvalho; Dimytri Alexandre de Alvim Siqueira; Luiz Eduardo Koenig São Thiago; Marco Perin; Valter C de Lima; Enio Guérios; Fabio Sandoli De Brito Junior Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Justine M Ravaux; Michele Di Mauro; Kevin Vernooy; Arnoud W Van't Hof; Leo Veenstra; Suzanne Kats; Jos G Maessen; Roberto Lorusso Journal: JTCVS Open Date: 2021-02-12