Marzahn Corinne, Koban Cornel, Seifert Martin, Isotani Akihiro, Neuß Michael, Hölschermann Frank, Butter Christian
Heart Center Brandenburg in Bernau, Medical School Brandenburg, Bernau, Germany; Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
Heart Center Brandenburg in Bernau, Medical School Brandenburg, Bernau, Germany.
J Cardiol. 2018 Jan;71(1):101-108. doi: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2017.06.007. Epub 2017 Aug 14.
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. Currently, various prosthesis types are available. Atrioventricular block (AVB) requiring pacemaker (PM) implantation is a typical complication after TAVI. This study investigated the recovery of AV node conduction and mid-term outcome of patients with or without PM implantation after TAVI according to prosthesis type.
From July 2008 to May 2015, 856 transcatheter heart valves were implanted at our center (age: 80.5±6.1 years; logistic EuroSCORE: 15.4%). These patients were followed up regularly in our outpatient clinic.
PM implantation was performed in 16.9% of patients due to severe conduction disturbances, mainly third-degree AVB. The need for PM implantation differed between the various prosthesis types: Medtronic CoreValve (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA): 22.8% (n=272), Edwards Sapien XT (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA): 13.0% (n=262), Edwards Sapien 3 (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA): 16.2% (n=234), Direct Flow Medical (Direct Flow Medical, Santa Rosa, CA, USA): 7.3% (n=41), St. Jude Medical Portico (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA): 15.4% (n=26), Boston Scientific Lotus (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA): 21.4% (n=14) and Medtronic Evolut R (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA): 14.3% (n=7). Kaplan-Meier analysis for all-cause mortality did not reveal any differences between the various prosthesis types. PM implantation rates declined over the years of experience in a stable intervention team; 45% of PM patients showed sufficient AV node conduction after PM reprogramming at our follow-up examination.
Mid-term all-cause survival after TAVI seems to be independent of prosthesis type and PM implantation after TAVI. Intrinsic AV node conduction recovers in a significant proportion of patients. Therefore, regular PM interrogations including reprogramming are required to avoid unnecessary permanent right ventricular stimulation.
经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)是重度主动脉瓣狭窄且手术风险高的患者的既定治疗选择。目前,有多种类型的假体可供使用。需要植入起搏器(PM)的房室传导阻滞(AVB)是TAVI后的典型并发症。本研究根据假体类型调查了TAVI后植入或未植入PM的患者房室结传导的恢复情况及中期结局。
2008年7月至2015年5月,我们中心植入了856枚经导管心脏瓣膜(年龄:80.5±6.1岁;逻辑欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统评分:15.4%)。这些患者在我们的门诊定期随访。
16.9%的患者因严重传导障碍接受了PM植入,主要是三度AVB。不同假体类型的PM植入需求有所不同:美敦力CoreValve(美敦力公司,明尼阿波利斯,明尼苏达州,美国):22.8%(n = 272),爱德华Sapien XT(爱德华生命科学公司,尔湾,加利福尼亚州,美国):13.0%(n = 262),爱德华Sapien 3(爱德华生命科学公司,尔湾,加利福尼亚州,美国):16.2%(n = 234),Direct Flow Medical(Direct Flow Medical,圣罗莎,加利福尼亚州,美国):7.3%(n = 41),圣犹达医疗Portico(圣犹达医疗公司,圣保罗,明尼苏达州,美国):15.4%(n = 26),波士顿科学Lotus(波士顿科学公司,马尔伯勒,马萨诸塞州,美国):21.4%(n = 14)和美敦力Evolut R(美敦力公司,明尼阿波利斯,明尼苏达州,美国):14.3%(n = 7)。对全因死亡率的Kaplan-Meier分析未显示不同假体类型之间存在任何差异。在经验稳定的干预团队中,多年来PM植入率有所下降;在我们的随访检查中,45%的PM患者在PM重新编程后显示房室结传导充分。
TAVI后的中期全因生存率似乎与假体类型和TAVI后是否植入PM无关。相当一部分患者的固有房室结传导得以恢复。因此,需要定期进行PM问询,包括重新编程,以避免不必要的永久性右心室刺激。