Division of Cardiology and Angiology II, University Heart Centre Freiburg, Bad Krozingen, Germany.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2021 Feb;44(2):240-246. doi: 10.1111/pace.14156. Epub 2021 Jan 5.
We sought to assess the safety of a restrictive permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) strategy after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) as compared to a liberal strategy.
Conduction disturbances resulting in PPI are common after TAVI. However, conduction disturbances may be transient and PPI may be superfluous in some patients.
Until August 2015, we performed PPI in all patients with new complete left bundle branch block (LBBB, QRS > 120 milliseconds) or higher degree atrioventricular (AV) blocks (liberal strategy). From September 2015 onwards, LBBB established an indication for PPI only in the presence of new-onset AV block (PQ > 200 milliseconds) (restrictive strategy). We analyzed the impact of the restrictive strategy on pacemaker implantation rate, duration of hospital stay, and 1-year mortality.
Between January 2014 and December 2016, 383 consecutive, pacemaker-naive patients underwent TAVI with the liberal PPI strategy and subsequently 384 with the restrictive strategy. The restrictive strategy significantly reduced the percentage of patients undergoing PPI before discharge (17.2% vs. 38.1%, p < .001) and length of hospital stay (intensive care unit 52 ± 55 vs. 60 ± 52 hours, p < .001; general ward 10.6 ± 5.7 vs. 11.5 ± 5.7 days, p = .001). One-year all-cause mortality was not significantly different between groups (14.1% vs. 11.7%, log-rank p = .28). However, sudden death was more frequent in the restrictive group (3.4% vs. 1.3%, log-rank p = .049).
As compared to a liberal indication for PPI, a restrictive indication reduced PPI rate and length of hospital stay without significantly affecting all-cause mortality. The observed increase in the risk of sudden death with the restrictive PPI indication deserves further investigation.
与宽松的永久起搏器植入(PPI)策略相比,我们旨在评估经导管主动脉瓣植入(TAVI)后限制 PPI 的安全性。
TAVI 后导致 PPI 的传导障碍很常见。然而,传导障碍可能是短暂的,在某些患者中 PPI 可能是多余的。
直到 2015 年 8 月,我们对所有新出现完全左束支传导阻滞(LBBB,QRS>120 毫秒)或更高程度房室(AV)阻滞(宽松策略)的患者进行 PPI。从 2015 年 9 月起,LBBB 仅在新出现的 AV 阻滞(PQ>200 毫秒)时才成为 PPI 的指征(限制策略)。我们分析了限制策略对起搏器植入率、住院时间和 1 年死亡率的影响。
2014 年 1 月至 2016 年 12 月,383 例连续、无起搏器的患者接受了 TAVI 治疗,其中 384 例采用宽松的 PPI 策略,随后 384 例采用限制策略。限制策略显著降低了出院前 PPI 患者的比例(17.2%比 38.1%,p<0.001)和住院时间(重症监护病房 52±55 小时比 60±52 小时,p<0.001;普通病房 10.6±5.7 天比 11.5±5.7 天,p=0.001)。两组 1 年全因死亡率无显著差异(14.1%比 11.7%,对数秩检验 p=0.28)。然而,限制组的猝死更为常见(3.4%比 1.3%,对数秩检验 p=0.049)。
与宽松的 PPI 适应证相比,限制 PPI 适应证可降低 PPI 率和住院时间,而不会显著影响全因死亡率。观察到限制 PPI 适应证与猝死风险增加相关,值得进一步研究。