Contemporary implantation protocols enable markedly lower pacemaker rate for selfexpandable TAVR

Abstract Background Even in a low-risk cohort, the Evolut low-risk trial has reported a still rather high pacemaker implantation rate over 20%. In the recent years, contemporary implantation protocols have been introduced aiming on a higher implantation position. Purpose Data on a reduction of pacem...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European heart journal 2024-10, Vol.45 (Supplement_1)
Hauptverfasser: Ahoopai, M, Geyer, M, Minke, T, Rogmann, M A, Ruf, T F, Goessler, T A M, Tamm, A R, Hell, M M, Masseli, F, Oberhoffer, M, Lurz, P, Von Bardeleben, R S
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Background Even in a low-risk cohort, the Evolut low-risk trial has reported a still rather high pacemaker implantation rate over 20%. In the recent years, contemporary implantation protocols have been introduced aiming on a higher implantation position. Purpose Data on a reduction of pacemaker rate in contemporary implantation practice is still limited. Methods We retrospectively analyzed baseline-characteristics and pacemaker-implantation rates after TAVR in patients being treated with a Medtronic Evolut Prosthesis for aortic valve stenosis in our center in the years 2018 (conventional implantation in 3-cusp view) vs. 2023 (contemporary implantation in cusp overlap technique). Results 160 Patients were retrospectively included. We found out, that contemporary implantation lead to a marked reduction of pacemaker rate (8.7 vs. 20.9%, p=0.047; HR 0.36[IQR 0.14-0.96; p=0.041]). While most baseline-parameters including age (83.5 (79.2/87.3) vs. 82.8 (79.4/86.2), p=0.654), LVEF (55.0 (54.3/57.8) vs. 55.0 (51.0/59.0), p=0.992) and overall risk score (Euroscore II 3.5 (2.5/4.7) vs. 3.6 (2.3/5.7), p= 0.726) had no relevant impact on pacemaker rate, female patients were less prone to receive a pacemaker (8.6% vs. 21.3%, p=0.030). Of all conduction disturbances before procedure, a pre-existing RBBB was strongly associated with a relevantly higher pacemaker rate (50.0% vs. 11.3% (p
ISSN:0195-668X
1522-9645
DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.1877