Key result
Permanent pacemaker implantation after SAVR was associated with increased 30-day mortality (7.0% vs. 2.5%, p=0.005) and decreased median survival (90 vs. 117 months, p<0.001).
Why the study?
Permanent pacemaker implantation after surgical aortic valve replacement is a recognized complication with potentially reduced long-term survival, prompting evaluation of its predictors and clinical impact.
Does the need for permanent pacemaker implantation after SAVR with a biological prosthesis affect long-term survival?
Cohort (n=2,500)
Does the need for permanent pacemaker implantation after SAVR with a biological prosthesis affect long-term survival?
Absolute Event Rate: 7% vs 2.5%
p-value: p=0.005
The need for permanent pacemaker implantation after SAVR with a biological prosthesis is associated with significantly increased 30-day mortality and reduced long-term survival.
May flag higher long-term risk after SAVR; leaves open whether PPM drives mortality or marks sicker patients.
The need for a permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation after surgical aortic valve implantation (SAVR) is a recognized postoperative complication, with potentially long-term reduced survival. From 1987 to 2017, 2500 consecutive patients underwent SAVR with a biological valve with or without concomitant procedures such as CABG or mitral valve repair. Mechanical valves or valves in another position were excluded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. The need for PPM implantation was documented in 2.7% of the cases. Patients with a postoperative PPM were older and had higher risk scores and a higher comorbid burden. Its predictors were a prior SAVR (odds ratio of 5.38, p < 0.001), use of a Perceval valve (3.94, p = 0.008), prior AV block 1–2 (2.86, p = 0.008), and pulmonary hypertension (2.09, p = 0.017). The need for PPM implantation was associated with an increased need for blood products, a prolonged stay in the ICU, and an increased 30-day mortality (2.5% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.005). The median survival decreased from 117 (114–120) to 90 (74–105) months (p < 0.001). The implantation had no significant effect on the freedom of congestive heart failure. The need for a PPM implant is not a benign event but might be a marker for a more severe underlying disease. Improving surgical techniques, especially with the Perceval rapid deployment valve, might decrease the need for a PPM implant.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deblier et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Surgical aortic valve replacement (n=2,500). Permanent pacemaker implantation vs. No permanent pacemaker implantation was evaluated on 30-day mortality (p=0.005). Permanent pacemaker implantation after SAVR was associated with increased 30-day mortality (7.0% vs. 2.5%, p=0.005) and decreased median survival (90 vs. 117 months, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: