Parikshit S Sharma1, Faiz A Subzposh2, Kenneth A Ellenbogen1, Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman3. 1. Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia. 2. Geisinger Heart Institute, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. 3. Geisinger Heart Institute, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: pvijayaraman1@geisinger.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conduction disease is not uncommon after prosthetic valve (PV) surgery. The feasibility of His-bundle pacing (HBP) in this patient population is not well studied. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report our experience with permanent HBP in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation after PV surgery. METHODS: Permanent HBP was attempted in patients with AV conduction disease after PV surgery referred for pacemaker implantation. Conduction disease was characterized as AV nodal vs infranodal. Feasibility, relationship of HBP lead to PVs, and HBP characteristics were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty patients (47% men, age 74 ± 12 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 49% ± 11%) with AV conduction disease (100% patients; 14 with infranodal block; right bundle branch block 9, left bundle branch block 5, intraventricular conduction delay 1) underwent HBP. PVs included aortic valve replacement (AVR) in 8 patients (infranodal block 6 patients), tricuspid valve (TV) ring with mitral valve replacement or repair (MVR) in 10 patients (AV nodal block 9 patients), transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in 4 patients (infranodal block 4 patients), and MVR alone in 6 patients. HBP was successful in 28 patients (93%) (selective HBP 50%). His bundle (HB) recruitment was unsuccessful in 2 patients with TAVR. AVR/TAVR and TV ring served as anatomic landmarks for localizing the HB. Successful sites of HBP were posterior and inferior to AVR/TAVR and distal and septal to the TV ring. Baseline QRSd improved from 124 ± 32 ms to 118 ± 20 ms (P = .39). HBP threshold at implant was 1.45 ± 1 V at 1 ms. CONCLUSION: Permanent HBP was feasible in 93% of patients with PVs. Patients with AVR/TAVR predominantly developed infranodal block compared to AV nodal block in patients with TV ring/MVR. Location of PV might serve as a landmark for identifying the site of the HB.
BACKGROUND:Conduction disease is not uncommon after prosthetic valve (PV) surgery. The feasibility of His-bundle pacing (HBP) in this patient population is not well studied. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report our experience with permanent HBP in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation after PV surgery. METHODS: Permanent HBP was attempted in patients with AV conduction disease after PV surgery referred for pacemaker implantation. Conduction disease was characterized as AV nodal vs infranodal. Feasibility, relationship of HBP lead to PVs, and HBP characteristics were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty patients (47% men, age 74 ± 12 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 49% ± 11%) with AV conduction disease (100% patients; 14 with infranodal block; right bundle branch block 9, left bundle branch block 5, intraventricular conduction delay 1) underwent HBP. PVs included aortic valve replacement (AVR) in 8 patients (infranodal block 6 patients), tricuspid valve (TV) ring with mitral valve replacement or repair (MVR) in 10 patients (AV nodal block 9 patients), transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in 4 patients (infranodal block 4 patients), and MVR alone in 6 patients. HBP was successful in 28 patients (93%) (selective HBP 50%). His bundle (HB) recruitment was unsuccessful in 2 patients with TAVR. AVR/TAVR and TV ring served as anatomic landmarks for localizing the HB. Successful sites of HBP were posterior and inferior to AVR/TAVR and distal and septal to the TV ring. Baseline QRSd improved from 124 ± 32 ms to 118 ± 20 ms (P = .39). HBP threshold at implant was 1.45 ± 1 V at 1 ms. CONCLUSION: Permanent HBP was feasible in 93% of patients with PVs. Patients with AVR/TAVR predominantly developed infranodal block compared to AV nodal block in patients with TV ring/MVR. Location of PV might serve as a landmark for identifying the site of the HB.
Authors: Chin C Lee; Khuyen Do; Sati Patel; Steven K Carlson; Tomas Konecny; Philip M Chang; Rahul N Doshi Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Jason Payne; Ann C Garlitski; Jonathan Weinstock; Munther Homoud; Christopher Madias; N A Mark Estes Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Nadine Ali; Daniel Keene; Ahran Arnold; Matthew Shun-Shin; Zachary I Whinnett; S M Afzal Sohaib Journal: Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev Date: 2018-06
Authors: Stephanie C Fuentes Rojas; Paul A Schurmann; Moisés Rodríguez-Mañero; Daniel Lustgarten; Miguel Valderrábano Journal: HeartRhythm Case Rep Date: 2019-01-25