Literature DB >> 30561575

Conduction disorders and impact on survival after sutureless aortic valve replacement compared to conventional stented bioprostheses.

Ka Yan Lam1, Ferdi Akca1, Niels J Verberkmoes1, Carola van Dijk1, Anouk Claessens1, Mohamed A Soliman Hamad1, Albert H M van Straten1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve prostheses are frequently used for the treatment of aortic stenosis. However, postoperative left bundle branch block (LBBB) and permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation have emerged as frequent complications. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of new-onset LBBB and PPM implantation after sutureless aortic valve replacement (sAVR) with stented bioprostheses, and the impact on postoperative survival.
METHODS: Patients undergoing isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) or concomitant AVR with coronary artery bypass surgery between January 2010 and July 2017 were included in the study. Two groups were defined: sAVR and conventional AVR (cAVR). The findings of preoperative electrocardiograms were compared with postoperative electrocardiogram findings for both groups. The incidence of new-onset LBBB and the requirement for PPM implantation were recorded. The effect of these conduction disorders on late survival was analysed.
RESULTS: A total of 987 patients were analysed, consisting of 132 sAVR and 855 cAVR patients. The sAVR group had an increased incidence of new-onset LBBB compared to the cAVR group (16.7% vs 2.3%, P < 0.001). A significantly higher rate of postoperative PPM implantation was found for sAVR patients compared to cAVR (6.8% vs 1.6%, P = 0.001). The multivariate Cox analysis revealed that neither postoperative new-onset LBBB nor PPM implantation was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio 1.73, 95% confidence interval 0.74-4.03, P = 0.204).
CONCLUSIONS: sAVR is associated with an increased risk of new-onset LBBB and PPM requirement compared to cAVR. In this population, postoperative conduction disorders did not affect the mid-term survival.
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aortic valve replacement; Conduction; Minimal invasive; Pacemaker; Survival; Sutureless valve

Year:  2019        PMID: 30561575     DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezy417

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN: 1010-7940            Impact factor:   4.191


  4 in total

1.  Conduction disorders after aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment bioprostheses: early occurrence and one-year evolution.

Authors:  Augusto D'Onofrio; Chiara Tessari; Lorenzo Bagozzi; Federico Migliore; Claudia Filippini; Giorgia Cibin; Rita Pesce; Annalisa Francescato; Gino Gerosa
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2020-09

Review 2.  Challenges and opportunities in improving left ventricular remodelling and clinical outcome following surgical and trans-catheter aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Xu Yu Jin; Mario Petrou; Jiang Ting Hu; Ed D Nicol; John R Pepper
Journal:  Front Med       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 4.592

3.  Recovery of conduction disorders after sutureless aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Ka Yan Lam; Naomi Timmermans; Ferdi Akca; Erwin Tan; Niels J Verberkmoes; Kim de Kort; Mohamed Soliman-Hamad; Albert H M van Straten
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2021-05-10

Review 4.  How to deal with low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricle ejection fraction: from literature review to tips for clinical practice.

Authors:  F Contorni; M Fineschi; A Iadanza; A Santoro; G E Mandoli; M Cameli
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2021-03-08       Impact factor: 4.214

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.