Weber Marcel, Brüggemann Eva, Schueler Robert, Momcilovic Diana, Sinning Jan-Malte, Ghanem Alexander, Werner Nikos, Grube Eberhard, Schiller Wolfgang, Mellert Fritz, Welz Armin, Nickenig Georg, Hammerstingl Christoph
Department of Medicine II, Heart Center Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str.25, 53105, Bonn, Germany.
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Heart Center Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Clin Res Cardiol. 2015 Nov;104(11):964-74. doi: 10.1007/s00392-015-0865-9. Epub 2015 May 13.
Left ventricular conduction disturbances (VCD) with or without need for pacemaker (PM) implantation are common after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Its effect on patients' functional recovery after TAVR is unclear.
212 patients (Age 80.8 ± 6.4 years, logEuroscore 28.95 ± 17.37 %) underwent TAVR with the self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis and completed 9-month follow-up (FU). After TAVR 125 (59 %) patients were diagnosed with VCD. This group consists of 41 (19 %) patients with a new PM after TAVR, 33 (16 %) patients with PM prior TAVR and markedly increased ventricular stimulation rate, 48 (23 %) patients with new LBBB post-TAVR and three (1 %) patients with LBBB prior TAVR. After FU, the presence of VCD alone was associated with worse recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (VCD: LVEFbaseline 51.7 ± 18.2 %, LVEFFU 53.9 ± 13.0 %; p = 0.8; noVCD: LVEFbaseline 53.8 ± 12.9 %, LVEFFU 63.4 ± 10.1 %; p < 0.01) but had no impact on functional outcomes after TAVR (p > 0.05). Especially patients with VCD caused by permanent RV pacing showed worse functional outcomes presenting with higher functional NYHA classes (p < 0.05), and higher NT-proBNP levels (p < 0.05). 20.4 % of patients with need for PM after TAVR remained in NYHA class ≥3, as compared to 5 % of patients without PM (VCD but no PM: 4.7 %, p < 0.001; noVCD: 5.3 %, p < 0.001). VCD with or without need for PM had no impact on survival after FU.
The occurrence of VCD after TAVR is common and associated with unfavorable left ventricular functional recovery. However, only the combination of VCD with permanent right ventricular pacing has adverse impact on heart failure-related symptoms after TAVR.
经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)后,无论是否需要植入起搏器(PM),左心室传导障碍(VCD)都很常见。其对TAVR术后患者功能恢复的影响尚不清楚。
212例患者(年龄80.8±6.4岁,欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统评分28.95±17.37%)接受了自膨胀CoreValve人工瓣膜的TAVR手术,并完成了9个月的随访(FU)。TAVR术后,125例(59%)患者被诊断为VCD。该组包括41例(19%)TAVR术后植入新PM的患者、33例(16%)TAVR术前植入PM且心室刺激率显著增加的患者、48例(23%)TAVR术后新发左束支传导阻滞(LBBB)的患者以及3例(1%)TAVR术前即有LBBB的患者。随访后,单纯VCD的存在与左心室射血分数(LVEF)恢复较差相关(VCD组:LVEF基线值51.7±18.2%,LVEF随访值53.9±13.0%;p = 0.8;无VCD组:LVEF基线值53.8±12.9%,LVEF随访值63.4±10.1%;p < 0.01),但对TAVR术后的功能结局无影响(p > 0.05)。特别是由永久性右心室起搏引起VCD的患者,其功能结局较差,纽约心脏协会(NYHA)心功能分级更高(p < 0.05),N末端B型利钠肽原(NT-proBNP)水平更高(p < 0.