Why the study?
Does new-onset LBBB following TAVR impair cardiac reverse remodeling in patients with severe aortic stenosis?
Does new-onset LBBB following TAVR impair cardiac reverse remodeling in patients with severe aortic stenosis?
TAVR-induced LBBB is associated with less favorable cardiac reverse remodeling at 6 months, highlighting the importance of minimizing conduction disturbances during the procedure.
New LBBB after TAVR was associated with impaired reverse remodeling; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is common following trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and has been linked to increased mortality, although whether this is related to less favourable cardiac reverse remodeling is unclear. The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of TAVR induced LBBB on cardiac reverse remodeling. METHODS: 48 patients undergoing TAVR for severe aortic stenosis were evaluated. 24 patients with new LBBB (LBBB-T) following TAVR were matched with 24 patients with a narrow post-procedure QRS (nQRS). Patients underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) prior to and 6 m post-TAVR. Measured cardiac reverse remodeling parameters included left ventricular (LV) size, ejection fraction (LVEF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS). Inter- and intra-ventricular dyssynchrony were determined using time to peak radial strain derived from CMR Feature Tracking. LBBB-T +0.2 ± 3.2%, p = 0.024). There was a significant correlation between change in QRS and change in LVEF (r = -0.434, p = 0.002) and between change in QRS and change in GLS (r = 0.462, p = 0.001). Post-procedure QRS duration was an independent predictor of change in LVEF and GLS at 6 months. CONCLUSION: TAVR-induced LBBB is associated with less favourable cardiac reverse remodeling at medium term follow up. In view of this, every effort should be made to prevent TAVR-induced LBBB, especially as TAVR is now being extended to a younger, lower risk population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dobson et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: