Key result
Conduction system pacing is linked to ~52% lower risk of death or HF hospitalization vs RVP.
Why the study?
PPM implantation is a common complication after TAVR associated with poorer long-term outcomes, and whether CSP improves outcomes remained unknown.
Observational (n=706)
Yes
Supports conduction system pacing over traditional in TAVR patients needing pacemakers; extends randomized evidence to this population.
BACKGROUND: Permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation remains a common complication after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and is associated with poorer long-term outcomes. Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a promising alternative to reduce the negative effects of chronic pacing. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether CSP is associated with improved outcomes in patients requiring a PPM after TAVR. METHODS: Observational multicenter study including consecutive patients requiring PPM implantation within 30 days after TAVR. This population was propensity matched using a logistic regression model. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint including death and heart failure hospitalization at 1-year follow-up. Echocardiographic and ECG changes over time were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 706 patients were included: 185(26.2%) in the CSP group and 521 (73.8%) in the RVP group. CSP was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause death or heart-failure hospitalization at 1 year compared to RVP (10.8% vs 20.9%; adjusted HR 0.48 [0.30-0.78]; p = 0.003). This was driven by significant reductions in both all-cause mortality (HR 0.52 [0.28-0.96]; p = 0.036) and heart-failure hospitalization (HR 0.50 [0.25-0.99]; p = 0.049). In addition, CSP was associated with a significantly shorter QRS duration at 30 days compared with RVP (121± 22 ms vs. 141± 18 ms; p < 0.001), as well as a significant improvement in LVEF at 1-year follow-up (+2.8 percentage points; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In TAVR patients requiring PPM, CSP showed better 1-year clinical outcomes than RVP. Prospective randomized studies are needed to confirm longer-term benefits and refine patient selection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fischer et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Patients requiring permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVR (n=706). Conduction system pacing (CSP) vs. Right ventricular pacing (RVP) was evaluated on Composite endpoint including death and heart failure hospitalization at 1-year follow-up (adjusted HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30-0.78, p=0.003). Conduction system pacing was associated with a significantly lower risk of death or heart failure hospitalization at 1 year compared to right ventricular pacing (10.8% vs 20.9%; HR 0.48; p=0.003).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: