Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: VIVID Registry

  • Alberto Alperi
  • Josep Rodés-Cabau
  • Matheus Simonato
  • Didier Tchetche
  • Gaetan Charbonnier
  • Henrique B Ribeiro
  • Azeem Latib
  • Matteo Montorfano
  • Marco Barbanti
  • Sabine Bleiziffer
  • Björn Redfors
  • Mohamed Abdel-Wahab
  • Abdelhakim Allali
  • Giuseppe Bruschi
  • Massimo Napodano
  • Marco Agrifoglio
  • Anna Sonia Petronio
  • Cristina Giannini
  • Albert Chan
  • Ran Kornowski
  • Nili Schamroth Pravda
  • Matti Adam
  • Alessandro Iadanza
  • Stephane Noble
  • Andrew Chatfield
  • Magdalena Erlebach
  • Jörg Kempfert
  • Timm Ubben
  • Harindra Wijeysundera
  • Moritz Seiffert
  • Thomas Pilgrim
  • Won-Keun Kim
  • Luca Testa
  • David Hildick-Smith
  • Roberto Nerla
  • Claudia Fiorina
  • Christina Brinkmann
  • Lars Conzelmann
  • Didier Champagnac
  • Francesco Saia
  • Henrik Nissen
  • Hafid Amrane
  • Brian Whisenant
  • Jasmin Shamekhi
  • Lars Søndergaard
  • John G Webb
  • Danny Dvir

Related Research units

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) remains one of the main drawbacks of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but scarce data exist on PPI after valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR, particularly with the use of newer-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs).

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine the incidence, factors associated with, and clinical impact of PPI in a large series of ViV-TAVR procedures.

METHODS: Data were obtained from the multicenter VIVID Registry and included the main baseline and procedural characteristics, in-hospital and late (median follow-up: 13 months [interquartile range: 3 to 41 months]) outcomes analyzed according to the need of periprocedural PPI. All THVs except CoreValve, Cribier-Edwards, Sapien, and Sapien XT were considered to be new-generation THVs.

RESULTS: A total of 1,987 patients without prior PPI undergoing ViV-TAVR from 2007 to 2020 were included. Of these, 128 patients (6.4%) had PPI after TAVR, with a significant decrease in the incidence of PPI with the use of new-generation THVs (4.7% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.017), mainly related to a reduced PPI rate with the Evolut R/Pro versus CoreValve (3.7% vs. 9.0%; p = 0.002). There were no significant differences in PPI rates between newer-generation balloon- and self-expanding THVs (6.1% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.18). In the multivariable analysis, older age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.05 for each increase of 1 year; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02 to 1.07; p = 0.001), larger THV size (OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.20; p = 0.02), and previous right bundle branch block (OR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.00 to 4.17; p = 0.05) were associated with an increased risk of PPI. There were no differences in 30-day mortality between the PPI (4.7%) and no-PPI (2.7%) groups (p = 0.19), but PPI patients exhibited a trend toward higher mortality risk at follow-up (hazard ratio: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.91; p = 0.04; p = 0.08 after adjusting for age differences between groups).

CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary large series of ViV-TAVR patients, the rate of periprocedural PPI was relatively low, and its incidence decreased with the use of new-generation THV systems. PPI following ViV-TAVR was associated with a trend toward increased mortality at follow-up.

Bibliographical data

Original languageEnglish
ISSN0735-1097
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 11.05.2021
PubMed 33958122