Why the study?
Does a modified surgical technique reduce the incidence of new-onset atrioventricular block requiring pacemaker implantation compared to standard technique in patients undergoing sutureless aortic valve replacement?
Does a modified surgical technique reduce the incidence of new-onset atrioventricular block requiring pacemaker implantation compared to standard technique in patients undergoing sutureless aortic valve replacement?
A modified surgical technique with complete decalcification and intra-annular deployment significantly reduces the risk of new-onset AV block requiring pacemaker after sutureless aortic valve replacement.
Modified implantation technique may lower pacemaker risk after Perceval SU-AVR; leaves open optimal patient selection and technique validation in prospective studies.
OBJECTIVES: In high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a sutureless Perceval prosthesis (SU-AVR) can be performed instead of conventional AVR or transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Little data are available regarding postoperative conduction disorders after SU-AVR. We aimed to determine the incidence and predictors of new-onset complete atrioventricular block (NO-AVB) requiring permanent cardiac stimulation following SU-AVR. METHODS: We studied consecutive patients who underwent SU-AVR between 2013 and 2015. Early patients underwent partial aortic decalcification and subannular valve implantation (standard technique), while later patients underwent complete/symmetrical decalcification and intra-annular valve deployment (modified technique). Predictive baseline and procedural variables and electrocardiographic parameters were identified using a logistic regression model. RESULTS: We included 140 patients (mean age, 78 ± 6.5 years; mean Log EuroSCORE II, 8.9 ± 10%; 28.6% concomitant myocardial revascularization). The most common postoperative conduction disturbances were LBBB (25%), NO-AVB (12.1%) and first-degree atrioventricular block (AVB) (7.9%). The incidence of NO-AVB was 61% lower with the modified versus the standard technique (P= 0.04). NO-AVB predominantly appeared within 24 h post-surgery, occurring >24 h post-surgery in only 2 patients (both with baseline conduction defects). Independent predictors of NO-AVB included baseline left QRS axis deviation (LaQD; P= 0.03), first-degree AVB (P< 0.01) and standard surgical technique (P= 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: NO-AVB is a frequent complication following SU-AVR, and its incidence strongly depends on the surgical technique. Baseline first-degree AVB and LaQD independently predict NO-AVB and should be considered when deciding the duration of postoperative electrocardiographic monitoring.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Toledano et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: