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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European heart journal 2024-10, Vol.45 (Supplement_1) |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
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 |