BackgroundConduction disease is an important and common complication post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Previously, we developed a conduction disease risk stratification and management protocol post-TAVR. This study aims to evaluate high-grade aortic valve block (HAVB) incidence and risk factors in a large cohort undergoing ambulatory cardiac monitoring post-TAVR according to conduction risk grouping.MethodsThis single-center, retrospective study evaluated all patients discharged on ambulatory cardiac monitoring between 2016 and 2021 and stratified them into 3 groups based on electrocardiogram predictors of HAVB risk (group 1 [low], group 2 [intermediate], and group 3 [high]). HAVB was defined as ≥2 consecutive nonconducted P waves in sinus rhythm or bradycardia <50 beats/minute with a fixed rate for atrial fibrillation/flutter. Descriptive statistics were used to show the incidence and timeline, while logistic regression was utilized to evaluate predictors of HAVB.ResultsFive hundred twenty-eight patients were included (median age 80 years [74-85]; 43.8% female). Forty-one patients (7.8%) developed HAVB during ambulatory monitoring (68% were asymptomatic). Over a median follow-up of 2 years (1.3-2.7), the overall mortality rate was 15.0% (30-day mortality rate of 0.57%, n = 3). Risk factors for HAVB were male sex (odds ratio [OR] = 2.46, p = 0.02, 95% CI = 1.21-5.43), baseline right bundle branch block (OR = 2.80, p = 0.01, 95% CI = 1.17-6.19), and post-TAVR QRS >150 ms (OR = 2.16, p = 0.03, 95% CI = 1.01-4.40). The negative predictive value for patients in groups 1 and 2 for 30-day HAVB was 95.0 and 93.8%, respectively.ConclusionsThe risk of 30-day HAVB post-TAVR on ambulatory monitoring post-TAVR varies according to post-TAVR electrocardiogram findings, and a 3-group algorithm effectively identifies groups with a low negative predictive value for HAVB.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alabdaljabar et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: