Interventional Cardiology Unit, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Am J Cardiol. 2013 Aug 15;112(4):554-9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.04.026. Epub 2013 May 29.
Conduction disorders and permanent pacemaker implantation are common complications in patients who undergo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and clinical significance of new bundle branch block in patients who underwent TAVI with the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving System (MCRS) or the Edwards SAPIEN valve (ESV). Data from 238 patients with no previous pacemaker implantation, left bundle branch block (LBBB) or right bundle branch block at baseline electrocardiography who underwent TAVI with either MCRS (n = 87) or ESV (n = 151) bioprostheses from 2007 to 2011 were analyzed. New-onset LBBB occurred in 26.5% patients (n = 63): 13.5% with the ESV (n = 20) and 50.0% with the MCRS (n = 43) (p = 0.001). Permanent pacemaker implantation was required in 12.7% of patients (n = 8) because of complete atrioventricular block (ESV n = 2, MCRS n = 4), LBBB and first degree atrioventricular block (MCRS n = 1) and new-onset LBBB associated with sinus bradycardia (MCRS n = 1). At discharge, LBBB persisted in 8.6% of ESV patients (n = 13) and 32.2% of MCRS patients (n = 28) (p = 0.001). On multivariate analysis, the only predictor of LBBB was MCRS use (odds ratio 7.2, 95% confidence interval 2.9 to 17.4, p <0.001). Persistent new-onset LBBB at discharge was not associated with overall (log-rank p = 0.42) or cardiovascular (log-rank p = 0.46) mortality. New-onset right bundle branch block was documented in 4.6% of patients (n = 11), with no statistically significant differences between the ESV and MCRS. In conclusion, new-onset LBBB is a frequent intraventricular conduction disturbance after TAVI with a higher incidence with the MCRS compared with the ESV. LBBB persists in most patients, but in this cohort, it was not a predictor of overall or cardiovascular mortality or permanent pacemaker implantation.
经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVI)后,传导障碍和永久性起搏器植入是常见的并发症。本研究旨在评估 2007 年至 2011 年间使用美敦力 CoreValve Revalving 系统(MCRS)或爱德华兹 SAPIEN 瓣膜(ESV)行 TAVI 的患者中新出现左束支传导阻滞(LBBB)的发生率和临床意义。共分析了 238 例无既往起搏器植入、基线心电图无左束支传导阻滞(LBBB)或右束支传导阻滞的患者的数据,这些患者均接受了 MCRS(n = 87)或 ESV(n = 151)生物瓣行 TAVI。结果发现,26.5%的患者(n = 63)新发 LBBB:ESV 组 13.5%(n = 20),MCRS 组 50.0%(n = 43)(p = 0.001)。由于完全性房室传导阻滞(ESV n = 2,MCRS n = 4)、LBBB 和一度房室传导阻滞(MCRS n = 1)和新发 LBBB 合并窦性心动过缓(MCRS n = 1),12.7%的患者(n = 8)需要植入永久性起搏器。出院时,ESV 组 8.6%(n = 13)和 MCRS 组 32.2%(n = 28)的患者持续存在 LBBB(p = 0.001)。多变量分析显示,新发 LBBB 的唯一预测因素是 MCRS 使用(比值比 7.2,95%置信区间 2.9 至 17.4,p <0.001)。出院时持续新发 LBBB与全因(对数秩检验 p = 0.42)或心血管(对数秩检验 p = 0.46)死亡率无关。新发右束支传导阻滞发生率为 4.6%(n = 11),ESV 和 MCRS 之间无统计学差异。总之,与 ESV 相比,MCRS 行 TAVI 后新发 LBBB 是一种常见的室内传导障碍。大多数患者持续存在 LBBB,但在本队列中,它不是全因或心血管死亡率或永久性起搏器植入的预测因素。