Key result
Conduction recovery occurs in ~18% of patients receiving a permanent pacemaker within 30 days post-TAVI.
Why the study?
Although some patients recover conduction function and become pacemaker-independent after TAVI, the incidence and predictors of 1-year pacemaker dependency in the randomized LANDMARK trial remained to be reported.
Does the type of transcatheter heart valve affect the recovery of conduction disturbances in patients requiring a permanent pacemaker after TAVI?
Does the type of transcatheter heart valve affect the recovery of conduction disturbances in patients requiring a permanent pacemaker after TAVI?
Approximately 18% of patients requiring a permanent pacemaker after TAVI recover conduction function within a year, with younger age being a predictor of recovery, but no significant difference observed between THV types.
May warrant pacing dependency reassessment in younger TAVI patients; hypothesis-generating for recovery predictors with no THV-type difference.
Background Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) remains a common complication after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). It is known that some patients remain dependent on pacing, while others recover conduction function over time and become pacemaker-independent during follow-up. Purpose The aim of this study is to report the incidence and predictors of 1-year pacemaker dependency in the randomized LANDMARK trial. Methods This is a post-hoc subanalysis of the LANDMARK trial. The LANDMARK trial is a randomized, open-label, multi-centre, non-inferiority trial that compares clinical outcomes of a Myval transcatheter heart valve (THV) series with the contemporary THVs (Sapien and Evolut series). A total of 768 patients with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis were assigned in a 1:1 ratio either to receive a Myval (n=368) or contemporary THV (n=368). Patients in the contemporary group were further randomized (1:1) to the Sapien or Evolut group. We aimed to obtain 1-year pacemaker follow-up data retrospectively in patients who received a permanent pacemaker within 30 days after TAVI. In case 1-year follow-up data were not available, the follow-up data closest to the 1-year timepoint was collected. Patients were excluded from this subanalysis if they did not undergo TAVI, were converted to SAVR, had a pre-procedure pacemaker, died within 1 year after TAVI, had no available pacemaker follow-up data, or were implanted with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Recovery of conduction disturbances was defined as ventricular pacing (VP) rate≦1%. Results Permanent pacemakers were implanted in 122 (15.9% of 768 randomized) patients within 30 days after TAVI. Excluding the patients who died within 1 year (n=10), had missing follow-up data (n=10), or received CRT (n=3), 99 patients were eligible for this subanalysis. The median time from pacemaker implantation to follow-up was 413 (280-588) days and the median VP rate was 28% (3-95%). Conduction recovery occurred in 18% (18/99). The recovery group was younger than the non-recovery group (78.6±3.0 vs 81.1±5.1 years, p=0.045). The implantation depth did not differ significantly (5.7±3.5 vs 5.8±2.8 mm, p=0.94). Recovery rates by THV type were: Myval 24% (11/46), Sapien 19% (5/26), and Evolut 7% (2/27), with no significant difference among groups (Figure 1). In univariable logistic regression, older age showed a borderline association with lower odds of recovery (odds ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.80-1.00, p=0.05). Conclusion In the randomized LANDMARK trial, the recovery of conduction disturbances (VP≦1%) was observed in 18% of the patients who received a permanent pacemaker, which is consistent with previous studies.For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tobe et al. (2026) studied this question. Conduction recovery, defined as ventricular pacing ≤1%, occurred in 18% of patients who received a permanent pacemaker within 30 days after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: