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 KornowskiNili 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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2263-2273
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume77
Issue number18
DOIs
StatePublished - May 11 2021
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • pacemaker
  • transcatheter aortic valve replacement
  • valve in valve

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: VIVID Registry'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this