Mortality after cardiac resynchronization therapy or right ventricular pacing in transcatheter aortic valve replacement recipients
-
Published:2024-05-02
Issue:
Volume:
Page:
-
ISSN:1861-0684
-
Container-title:Clinical Research in Cardiology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Clin Res Cardiol
Author:
Kirchner Johannes, Gerçek Muhammed, Sciacca Vanessa, Reil Jan-Christian, Guckel Denise, Potratz Max, Omran Hazem, Friedrichs Kai, Eitz Thomas, Bleiziffer Sabine, Schramm Rene, Imnadze Guram, Sohns Christian, Gummert Jan, Rudolph Volker, Rudolph Tanja K., Sommer Philipp, Fink ThomasORCID
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Permanent pacemaker implantation (PMI) is associated with increased morbidity after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Cardiac resynchronization-therapy (CRT) is recommended for patients if left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is ≤ 40% and ventricular pacing is expected in favor to sole right ventricular (RV) pacing. Meanwhile, LVEF may recover after TAVR in patients with aortic valve disease and the benefit of CRT is unknown.
Objective
To analyze the impact of CRT implantation as compared to RV pacing after TAVR.
Methods and Results
Between 2012 and 2022, 4385 patients (53.1% female, mean age 81 ± 6 years) without prior PMI undergoing TAVR were retrospectively identified in our institutional registry. After stratification of patients in LVEF ≤ 40%, 41–49% and ≥ 50%, Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed significantly different survival rates in each subgroup at 5 years (37.0% vs. 43.5% vs. 55.1%; P ≤ 0.021). At multivariate regression, LVEF and new PMI after TAVR were not relevant for survival. A total of 105 patients with LVEF ≤ 40% received PMI after TAVR (86 patients with RV pacing and 19 with CRT). At 5 years, all-cause mortality was significantly lower in patients with CRT-device as compared to patients without CRT-device (Kaplan Meier estimate of 21.1% vs. 48.8%; HR 0.48, CI 0.204 – 1.128; log rank p = 0.045). In multivariate analysis CRT remained a significant factor for 5-year survival in these patients (HR 0.3, CI 0.095–0.951, p = 0.041).
Conclusion
In patients undergoing TAVR, PMI did not influence 5-year survival. In patients with LVEF ≤ 40%, CRT-device implantation was associated with improved survival compared to non-CRT-device implantation.
Graphical Abstract
Impact of right ventricular pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy on patient survival in patients with transcatheter aortic valve replacement. CI = confidence interval, CRT = cardiac resynchronization therapy, HR = hazard ratio, LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction, RV = right ventricular, TAVR = transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Funder
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference23 articles.
1. Auffret V, Puri R, Urena M, Chamandi C, Rodriguez-Gabella T, Philippon F, Rodés-Cabau J (2017) Conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: current status and future perspectives. Circulation 136(11):1049–1069. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.028352 2. Glikson M, Nielsen JC, Kronborg MB, Michowitz Y, Auricchio A, Barbash IM, Barrabés JA, Boriani G, Braunschweig F, Brignole M, Burri H, Coats AJS, Deharo JC, Delgado V, Diller GP, Israel CW, Keren A, Knops RE, Kotecha D, Leclercq C, Merkely B, Starck C, Thylén I, Tolosana JM, Leyva F, Linde C, Abdelhamid M, Aboyans V, Arbelo E, Asteggiano R, Barón-Esquivias G, Bauersachs J, Biffi M, Birgersdotter-Green U, Bongiorni MG, Borger MA, Čelutkienė J, Cikes M, Daubert JC, Drossart I, Ellenbogen K, Elliott PM, Fabritz L, Falk V, Fauchier L, Fernández-Avilés F, Foldager D, Gadler F, De Vinuesa PGG, Gorenek B, Guerra JM, Hermann Haugaa K, Hendriks J, Kahan T, Katus HA, Konradi A, Koskinas KC, Law H, Lewis BS, Linker NJ, Løchen ML, Lumens J, Mascherbauer J, Mullens W, Nagy KV, Prescott E, Raatikainen P, Rakisheva A, Reichlin T, Ricci RP, Shlyakhto E, Sitges M, Sousa-Uva M, Sutton R, Suwalski P, Svendsen JH, Touyz RM, Van Gelder IC, Vernooy K, Waltenberger J, Whinnett Z, Witte KK (2022) 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Europace 24(1):71–164. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euab232. (Erratum in: Europace. 2022 Mar 07) 3. van Rosendael PJ, Delgado V, Bax JJ (2018) Pacemaker implantation rate after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with early and new-generation devices: a systematic review. Eur Heart J 39(21):2003–2013. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx785 4. Fujita B, Schmidt T, Bleiziffer S, Bauer T, Beckmann A, Bekeredjian R, Möllmann H, Walther T, Landwehr S, Hamm C, Beyersdorf F, Katus HA, Harringer W, Ensminger S, Frerker C, GARY Executive Board (2020) Impact of new pacemaker implantation following surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement on 1-year outcome. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 57(1):151–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezz168 5. Fadahunsi OO, Olowoyeye A, Ukaigwe A, Li Z, Vora AN, Vemulapalli S, Elgin E, Donato A (2016) Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of permanent pacemaker implantation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: analysis from the U.S. society of thoracic surgeons/American college of cardiology TVT registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 9(21):2189–2199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2016.07.026
|
|