MEDLINE/PubMed Journal Browser Search

Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

Title: Ventricular pacing burden in patients with left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve replacement therapy.
Author: Serban T, Knecht S, du Lavallaz JDF, Nestelberger T, Kaiser C, Leibundgut G, Osswald S, Schaer B, Sticherling C, Kühne M, Badertscher P.
Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol; 2023 Jun; 34(6):1464-1468. PubMed ID: 37146212.
Abstract:
INTRODUCTION: Electrophysiological testing has been proposed in the latest European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for cardiac pacing to identify left bundle branch block (LBBB) patients with infrahisian conduction delay (IHCD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). While in general IHCD is defined by a His-ventricular (HV) interval of >55 ms, a cut-off of ≥70 ms to trigger pacemaker (PM) implantation has been proposed in the latest ESC guidelines. The ventricular pacing (VP) burden during follow-up in such patients is largely unknown. As such, we aimed to assess the VP burden during follow-up of patients receiving PM therapy for LBBB after TAVR based on an HV interval > 55 ms and ≥70 ms. METHODS: All patients with new-onset or pre-existing LBBB after undergoing TAVR at a tertiary referral center underwent EP testing the day after TAVR. In patients with a prolonged HV interval (>55 ms), PM implantation was performed by a trained electrophysiologist in a standardized fashion. All devices were programmed to avoid unnecessary VP by specific algorithms (e.g., AAI-DDD). RESULTS: 701 patients underwent TAVR at the University Hospital of Basel. One hundred seventy-seven patients presented with new-onset or pre-existing LBBB the day following TAVR and underwent EP testing. An HV interval > 55 ms was found in 58 patients (33%) and an HV interval ≥ 70 ms in 21 patients (12%). 51 patients (mean age 84 ± 6.2 years, 45% women) agreed to receive a PM, out of which 20 (39%) patients had an HV Interval over 70 ms. Atrial fibrillation was present in 53% of the patients. A dual chamber PM was implanted in 39 (77%), and a single chamber PC in 12 (23%) patients, respectively. Median follow-up was 21 months. The median VP burden overall was 3%. The median VP burden was not significantly different between patients with an HV ≥ 70 ms (6.5 [0.8-52]) and those with an HV between 55 and 69 ms (2 [0-17], p = .23). 31% of patients demonstrated a VP burden < 1%, 27% 1%-5% and 41% > 5%. The median HV intervals in patients with VP burdens < 1%, 1%-5% and >5% were 66 (IQR 62-70) ms, 66 (IQR 63-74) ms and 68 (IQR 60-72) ms, respectively, p = .52. When only assessing patients with an HV interval 55-69 ms, 36% demonstrated a VP burden of <1%, 29% of 1%-5% and 35% of >5%. In patients with an HV Interval ≥ 70 ms, 25% demonstrated a VP burden < 1%, 25% of 1%-5% and 50% of >5% %, p = .64 (Figure). CONCLUSION: In patients with LBBB after TAVR and IHCD defined by an HV interval > 55 ms, VP burden is relevant in a non-negligible amount of patients during follow-up. Further studies are warranted to define the optimal cut-off value for the HV interval or to develop risk models incorporating HV measurements and other risk factors to trigger PM implantation in patients with LBBB after TAVR.

[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]