Dataset Information

Permanent pacemaker dependency in patients with new left bundle branch block and new first degree atrioventricular block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

ABSTRACT: Conduction disorders with need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation remain frequent complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Up to 22% of PPM after TAVI are implanted for new onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) and atrioventricular block (AVB) I. However, clinical benefit and predictors of ventricular pacing in TAVI patients receiving PPM for this indication remain unclear. We retrospectively evaluated pacemaker interrogation data of patients who received a PPM post TAVI for new LBBB and new AVB I. The primary endpoint of this study was relevant ventricular pacing (ventricular pacing rate: Vp ≥ 1%) at the first outpatient pacemaker interrogation. Secondary endpoints were predictors for relevant ventricular pacing. At the first pacemaker interrogation (median follow up at 6.23 [2.8-14.8] months), median ventricular pacing frequency was 1.0% [0.1-17.8]. Out of 61 patients, 36 (59%) had Vp rates ≥ 1%. Patients with frequent ventricular pacing showed longer QRS duration (155 ms ± 17 ms vs. 144 ms ± 18 ms, p = 0.018) at the time of PPM implantation and were less likely treated with a balloon-expandable Edwards Sapiens Valve (39% vs. 12%, p = 0.040). Our findings suggest that the majority of patients with new LBBB and new AVB I after TAVI show relevant ventricular pacing rates at follow up. Further prospective studies are necessary to identify patients at higher risk of pacemaker dependency.

SUBMITTER: Hartrampf B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8692410 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough right ventricular pacing (RVP) is recommended by most of the guidelines for atrioventricular block, it can cause electrical and mechanical desynchrony, impair left ventricular function, and increase the risk of atrial fibrillation. Recently, the His-Purkinje system pacing, including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), has emerged as a physiological pacing modality. However, few studies have compared their efficacy and safety in atrioventricular block (AVB).Methods and resultsThe PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect databases were searched for observational studies and randomized trials of patients with atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacing, from database inception until 10 January 2022. The primary outcomes were complications and heart failure hospitalization. The secondary outcomes included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), pacing parameters, procedure duration, and success rate. After extracting the data at baseline and the longest follow-up duration available, a pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis were performed. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, whereas mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs or 95% CrIs were calculated for continuous outcomes. Seven studies and 1,069 patients were included. Overall, 43.4% underwent LBBP, 33.5% HBP, and 23.1% RVP. Compared with RVP, LBBP and HBP were associated with a shorter paced QRS duration and a more preserved LVEF. HBP significantly increased the pacing threshold and reduced the R-wave amplitude. There was no difference in the risk of complications or the implant success rate. The pacing threshold remained stable during follow-up for the three pacing modalities. The pacing impedance was significantly reduced in HBP, while a numerical but non-significant pacing impedance decrease was observed in both LBBP and RVP. LBBP was associated with an increased R-wave amplitude during follow-up.ConclusionIn this systematic review and network meta-analysis, HBP and LBBP were superior to RVP in paced QRS duration and preservation of LVEF for patients with atrioventricular block. LBBP was associated with a lower pacing threshold and a greater R-wave amplitude than HBP. However, the stability of the pacing output of LBBP may be a concern. Further investigation of the long-term efficacy in left ventricular function and the risk of heart failure hospitalization is needed.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=315046], identifier [CRD42022315046].

Project description:Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel pacing modality with stable pacing parameters and a narrow-paced QRS duration. We compared heart failure (HF) hospitalization events and echocardiographic measures between LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). Methods and Results: This multicenter observational study prospectively recruited consecutive AVB patients requiring ventricular pacing in five centers if they received LBBAP or RVP and had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >50%. Data on electrocardiogram, pacing parameters, echocardiographic measurements, device complications, and clinical outcomes were collected at baseline and during follow-up. The primary outcome was first episode hospitalization for HF or upgrade to biventricular pacing. LBBAP was successful in 235 of 246 patients (95.5%), while 120 patients received RVP. During a mean of 11.4 ± 2.7 months of follow-up, the ventricular pacing burden was comparable (83.9 ± 35.1 vs. 85.7 ± 30.0%), while the mean LVEF differed significantly (62.6 ± 4.6 vs. 57.8 ± 11.4%) between the LBBAP and RVP groups. Patients with LBBAP had significantly lower occurrences of HF hospitalization and upgrading to biventricular pacing than patients with RVP (2.6 vs. 10.8%, P <0.001), and differences in primary outcome between LBBAP and RVP were mainly observed in patients with ventricular pacing >40% or with baseline LVEF <60%. The primary outcome was independently associated with LBBAP (adjusted HR 0.14, 95% CI: 0.04-0.55), previous myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 6.82, 95% CI: 1.23-37.5), and baseline LVEF (adjusted HR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86-0.96). Conclusion: Permanent LBBAP might reduce the risk of HF hospitalization or upgrade to biventricular pacing compared with RVP in AVB patients requiring a high burden of ventricular pacing. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03851315; URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn; Unique Identifier: ChiCTR2100043296.

Dataset Information

Permanent pacemaker dependency in patients with new left bundle branch block and new first degree atrioventricular block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets