Permanent Pacemaker Reduction Using Temporary-Permanent Pacemaker As a 1-Month Bridge after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: a Prospective, Multicentre, Single-Arm, Observational Study
Sanshuai Chang,Zhengming Jiang,Xinmin Liu,Yida Tang,Ming Bai,Jizhe Xu,Haiping Wang,Yuguo Chen,Chuanbao Li,Yundai Chen,Changfu Liu,Jianzeng Dong,Jianfang Luo,Jie Li,Guosheng Fu,Sheng Wang,Hui Huang,Yuewu Zhao,Xijin Zhuang,Hasan Jilaihawi,Nicolo Piazza,Feicheng Yu,Thomas Modine,Guangyuan Song
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102603
IF: 15.1
2024-01-01
EClinicalMedicine
Abstract:Background The permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation and pacemaker dependency rates after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are highly variable as some of the conduction disturbances are reversible. It remains poorly investigated how to optimise temporary pacing in these patients. This study aimed to explore the potential reduction in the PPM implantation rate using temporary-permanent pacemaker (TPPM) as a 1-month bridge. Methods This is a prospective, multicentre, single-arm, observational study. Consecutive patients undergoing TAVR from March 1, 2022 to March 1, 2023 in 13 tertiary hospitals in China were screened. Patients who developed high- degree atrioventricular block, complete heart block, or first-degree atrioventricular block plus new onset left bundle branch block during the TAVR procedure or within 1 month after TAVR were included to receive TPPM. Patients with pre-existing PPM implantation or indications for PPM implantation before the TAVR procedure were excluded. Patients with TPPM were monitored to determine whether the conduction disturbances persisted or recovered. The primary endpoint was the rate of freedom from indications for PPM implantation 1 month after TAVR. This study is registered with ChiCTR, ChiCTR2200057931. Findings Of 688 patients who have undergone TAVR, 71 developed conduction disturbance and met the inclusion criteria, 1 patient withdrew due to noncompliance, 70 patients received TPPM and completed follow-up. There were 41 (58.6%) men and 29 (41.4%) women in the study, with a mean age of 74.3 +/- 7.3 years. At 1 month follow-up, 75.7% (53/70) of the patients with TPPM did not require PPM implantation. For 688 patients who have undergone TAVR, the rate of PPM implantation at 1 month was 2.47% (17/688, 95% CI 1.55%-3.92%), - 3.92%), representing a significant fi cant reduction in self-comparison with the rate at 48 h after TPPM (2.47% vs. 8.28% [95% CI 6.45%-10.58%], - 10.58%], P < 0.0001). Similar results were obtained in the subgroup analysis of patients with HAVB/CHB. Multivariate analysis revealed the baseline PR interval, difference between the membranous septum length and implantation depth, and timing of postprocedural conduction disturbance occurrence were independent predictors of freedom from indications for PPM implantation at 1 month after TAVR. Interpretation Using TPPM as a 1-month bridge allows for a buffer period to distinguish whether conduction disturbances are reversible or persistent, resulting in a significant fi cant reduction in the PPM implantation rate after TAVR when compared with the current strategy. However, this is an observational study, the results need to be confirmed firmed in a randomized trial.