Why the study?
Further risk stratification and management remain challenging in patients with pre-existing RBBB undergoing TAVI owing to limited data.
Do specific TAVI deployment strategies (avoidance of predilation and high valve deployment) reduce the risk of advanced conduction disturbances and PPM requirement in patients with pre-existing RBBB?
Do specific TAVI deployment strategies (avoidance of predilation and high valve deployment) reduce the risk of advanced conduction disturbances and PPM requirement in patients with pre-existing RBBB?
In patients with pre-existing RBBB undergoing TAVI, avoiding predilation and aiming for a high valve deployment depth (≤2.0 mm) significantly reduces the risk of advanced conduction disturbances and the need for a permanent pacemaker.
May lower conduction disturbance and PPM risk with no predilation plus high deployment in RBBB-TAVI; leaves open randomized confirmation.
Background Pre-existing right bundle branch block (RBBB) is a strong predictor of increased need for a permanent pacemaker (PPM) following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Yet, further risk stratification and management remain challenging in patients with pre-existing RBBB owing to limited data. Therefore, we sought to investigate the incidence, predictors, and management of advanced conduction disturbances after TAVI in patients with pre-existing RBBB. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 261 consecutive patients with pre-existing RBBB (median age 81 years; 28.0% female; 95.0% received a balloon-expandable valve) without a pre-existing PPM who underwent TAVI at our institution in 2015-2019. Outcomes were high-degree atrioventricular block/complete heart block (HAVB/CHB) and PPM requirement. Results Overall, the 30-day HAVB/CHB rate was 28.0%, of which 76.7% occurred during the TAVI procedure. The delayed HAVB/CHB rate was 8.3%. Implantation depth below aortic annulus (per 1-mm increase) was significantly associated with increased risk of procedural HAVB/CHB (adjusted odds ratio=1.25, 95% confidence interval=1.07-1.46), delayed HAVB/CHB (1.34 [1.01-1.79]), and 30-day PPM (1.32 [1.11-1.55]). Predilation was associated with delayed HAVB/CHB (4.02 [1.22-13.23]). The combination of no predilation and implantation depth of ≤2.0 mm had lower rates of procedural HAVB/CHB (11.2% vs. 26.7%-30.4%, p = 0.011), delayed HAVB/CHB (2.1% vs. 7.6%-28.1%, p < 0.001), and 30-day PPM (10.3% vs. 20.0%-43.5%, p < 0.001) than the other strategies of valve deployment. Complete HAVB/CHB recovery after PPM implantation was uncommon at 7.1%. Conclusions In patients with pre-existing RBBB, the majority of HAVB/CHB events occurred during the TAVI procedure. Avoidance of predilation coupled with high valve deployment may result in relatively low rates of procedural and delayed HAVB/CHB, along with 30-day PPM rates.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Isogai et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: