BACKGROUND: Outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have been demonstrated to be at least equivalent in the short term compared to surgical valve implantation (SAVI). However, Conduction abnormalities are more common after TAVI than SAVI and the need for permanent pacemaker implantation is more common after TAVI with the currently commercially available self-expanding valves than after SAVI. Temporary pacemaker implantation may be associated with inability to ambulate, lead migration or perforation and infection. Depending on the monitoring system, some arrhythmias may not be detected. We examined the feasibility and safety of permanent pacemaker lead implantation connected to an external generator in patients undergoing TAVI at our institution.
METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients (between April 1st 2014 and April 30th 2016) at a single center without permanent pacemaker at the time of TAVI who underwent implantation of a permanent pacemaker lead after TAVI connected to an external generator. Focus was the examination of feasibility and safety of our aforementioned approach. In addition, data analysis was performed separating patients into two groups depending on whether (group 1) or not (group 2) permanent pacemaker implantation was ultimately needed.
RESULTS: Per our institutional protocol, all consecutive 114 patients underwent insertion of a permanent pacemaker lead after TAVI connected to an external generator. There was one pericardial effusion on postoperative day one that may have been related to the left ventricular wire for TAVI valve delivery. However, perforation due to the pacemaker lead cannot be excluded. Specifically, no access site complications, lead dislodgments or infections occurred. All patients were able to ambulate after the procedure without delay. The permanent pacemaker lead remained in place on average for 4.3 days in group 1 (n = 10) and 4.4 days in group 2 (n = 104) (variance of 3.8 and 3.4 days respectively, [minimum/maximum 0/11 days and 1 and 12 days]). Of the ten patients (9%) who required permanent pacemaker implantation, 8 had a complete atrioventricular block and two had tachy-brady arrhythmias in the context of atrial fibrillation. None of the baseline characteristics including baseline conduction abnormalities were predictors for PPI.
CONCLUSION: Implantation of a permanent pacemaker lead connected to an external generator is feasible and safe and could be a better option than implantation of a temporary lead connected to an external generator. It may allow earlier ambulation and facilitate monitoring.
|Number of pages||4|
|Journal||Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions|
|Early online date||17 Feb 2020|
|Publication status||Published - Jun 2020|
- Aged, 80 and over
- Arrhythmias, Cardiac/diagnosis
- Cardiac Pacing, Artificial/adverse effects
- Electric Power Supplies
- Equipment Design
- Feasibility Studies
- Pacemaker, Artificial
- Patient Safety
- Retrospective Studies
- Risk Assessment
- Risk Factors
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/adverse effects
- Treatment Outcome