Why the study?
SU-SAVR has been associated with higher rates of PPM than conventional bioprostheses, but its incidence, predictors, and mid-term prognostic impact in low-risk patients receiving the Perceval prosthesis were uncertain.
What is the incidence, predictors, and prognostic impact of permanent pacemaker implantation following sutureless aortic valve replacement with the Perceval prosthesis in low-risk patients?
What is the incidence, predictors, and prognostic impact of permanent pacemaker implantation following sutureless aortic valve replacement with the Perceval prosthesis in low-risk patients?
In low-risk patients undergoing sutureless aortic valve replacement, 9% required a permanent pacemaker, strongly predicted by baseline RBBB, but this did not adversely affect mid-term mortality or heart failure rehospitalization.
PPM occurs in 9% after Perceval SU-SAVR in low-risk patients, predicted by baseline RBBB, without mid-term mortality or HF impact; leaves open longer-term effects.
OBJECTIVES: Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR) has been associated with higher rates of permanent pacemaker (PPM) compared with conventionally implanted aortic bioprostheses. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence, predictors and mid-term prognostic impact of PPM after Perceval (Livanova, London, UK) SU-SAVR in low-risk patients. METHODS: A total of 400 consecutive low-risk (EuroSCORE II < 4%) patients without prior pacemaker who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement with the Perceval prosthesis from 2013 to 2019 in 2 centres were included. Baseline, clinical and electrocardiographic parameters, procedural characteristics and follow-up data were collected. RESULTS: PPM was required in 36 (9%) patients after SU-SAVR, with a median time between the procedure and PPM implantation of 7.5 (4.5-10.5) days. Older age and prior right bundle branch block (RBBB) were associated with an increased risk of PPM (P < 0.05 for all), but only baseline RBBB was found to be an independent predictor of new PPM requirement (odds ratio: 2.60, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-5.81; P = 0.022). At a median follow-up of 3.4 (2.3-4.5) years, there were no differences between groups in mortality (PPM: 36%, no PPM: 22%, P = 0.105) or heart failure rehospitalization (PPM: 25%, no PPM: 21%, P = 0.839). CONCLUSIONS: About 1 out of 10 low-risk patients with aortic stenosis undergoing SU-SAVR with the Perceval prosthesis required PPM implantation. Prior RBBB determined an increased risk (close to 3-fold) of PPM following the procedure. PPM was not associated with a higher risk of clinical events at 3-year follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vilalta et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: