Permanent pacemaker implantation is a common complication after TAVR, driven by mechanical compression and pre-existing conduction defects like RBBB, and may impact prognosis and quality of life.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Variable conduction risks after TAVR warrant individualized pre-procedural counseling; leaves open valve-specific strategies to reduce pacemaker implantation.
The number of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) worldwide is increasing steadily. Atrioventricular conduction disturbances, with or without the need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, are one of the most common adverse events after TAVR. Among transcatheter heart valves (THV), rates of conduction abnormalities vary from less than 10 % to more than 50 %. Depending on the reported data referred to, historical data showed that up to one-third of the patients required implantation of a PPM following TAVR. Although generally considered as a minor complication, PPM may have a profound impact on prognosis and quality of life after TAVR. Current data support the hypothesis that conduction abnormalities leading to pacemaker dependency result from mechanical compression of the conduction system by the prosthesis stent frame and individual predisposing conduction defects such as right bundle-branch block (RBBB). With several large randomised trials and registry studies having been published recently and second generation THV having been introduced, the debate about predictors for pacemaker implantation and their impact on outcome after TAVR is still ongoing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Weber et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: