Key result
LV guidewire pacing showed numerically lower global cardiac tamponade vs RV pacing (1.1% vs 2.5%; OR 0.45; p=0.08) and significantly reduced lead-related tamponade (OR 0.09; p=0.03).
Why the study?
Conventional RV temporary pacing during TAVI risks myocardial perforation and cardiac tamponade via transvenous lead placement, and the impact of LV guidewire pacing on clinically relevant outcomes had not been systematically evaluated.
Does left ventricular guidewire pacing reduce cardiac tamponade compared with conventional right ventricular temporary pacing in patients undergoing TAVI?
Meta-Analysis (n=2,840)
Does left ventricular guidewire pacing reduce cardiac tamponade compared with conventional right ventricular temporary pacing in patients undergoing TAVI?
Eliminating transvenous RV lead instrumentation by using LV guidewire pacing during TAVI significantly reduces pacing lead-related cardiac tamponade and shortens procedural duration without increasing major adverse events.
Background Rapid ventricular pacing is mandatory during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Conventional right ventricular (RV) temporary pacing requires transvenous lead placement and introduces a potentially preventable mechanism of myocardial perforation and cardiac tamponade. Left ventricular (LV) guidewire pacing avoids RV instrumentation, but its impact on clinically relevant outcomes has not been systematically evaluated. Purpose To assess whether LV guidewire pacing improves procedural safety compared with conventional RV temporary pacing during TAVI. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and Web of Science was performed through February 2026. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO. Comparative studies of LV versus RV pacing during TAVI were included. The primary endpoint was cardiac tamponade. A pre-specified mechanistic analysis differentiated pacing lead–related from annular rupture–related tamponade. Random-effects models were applied. Results Five studies (1 randomised trial and 4 observational cohorts) including 2,840 patients (1,910 LV; 930 RV) were analysed. Global cardiac tamponade occurred in 1.1% with LV pacing versus 2.5% with RV pacing (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.18–1.16; p=0.08; I²=0%). LV pacing significantly reduced pacing lead–related tamponade (OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.02–0.56; p=0.03; I²=0%), while annular rupture–related events were similar between strategies. All-cause mortality was lower in pooled analyses (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.36–0.57; p<0.001), predominantly driven by observational data. Stroke, major vascular complications, bleeding and permanent pacemaker implantation did not differ. LV pacing shortened procedural duration by 5.8 minutes (p=0.0002). Conclusion Elimination of transvenous RV lead instrumentation markedly reduces pacing lead–related cardiac tamponade without increasing major adverse events and improves procedural efficiency. LV guidewire pacing represents a mechanistically rational and immediately implementable strategy aligned with contemporary minimalist TAVI practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gomes et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) (n=2,840). Left ventricular (LV) guidewire pacing vs. Conventional right ventricular (RV) temporary pacing was evaluated on Cardiac tamponade (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.18-1.16, p=0.08). LV guidewire pacing showed numerically lower global cardiac tamponade vs RV pacing (1.1% vs 2.5%; OR 0.45; p=0.08) and significantly reduced lead-related tamponade (OR 0.09; p=0.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: