Feasibility study of using bridging temporary permanent pacemaker in patients with high-degree atrioventricular block after TAVR.
10.3760/cma.j.cn112148-20221116-00898
- Author:
San Shuai CHANG
1
;
Xin Min LIU
1
;
Zhi Nan LU
1
;
Jing YAO
1
;
Cneng Qian YIN
1
;
Wen Hui WU
1
;
Fei YUAN
1
;
Tai Yang LUO
1
;
Zheng Ming JIANG
2
;
Guang Yuan SONG
1
Author Information
1. Interventional Center of Valvular Heart Disease, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Clinical Research Centre for Cardiovascular Diseases, Beijing 100029, China.
2. Department of Cardiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450000, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Female;
Humans;
Atrioventricular Block/therapy*;
Feasibility Studies;
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement;
Pacemaker, Artificial;
Bundle-Branch Block
- From:
Chinese Journal of Cardiology
2023;51(6):648-655
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To determine the feasibility of using temporary permanent pacemaker (TPPM) in patients with high-degree atrioventricular block (AVB) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as bridging strategy to reduce avoidable permanent pacemaker implantation. Methods: This is a prospective observational study. Consecutive patients undergoing TAVR at Beijing Anzhen Hospital and the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from August 2021 to February 2022 were screened. Patients with high-degree AVB and TPPM were included. Patients were followed up for 4 weeks with pacemaker interrogation at every week. The endpoint was the success rate of TPPM removal and free from permanent pacemaker at 1 month after TPPM. The criteria of removing TPPM was no indication of permanent pacing and no pacing signal in 12 lead electrocardiogram (EGG) and 24 hours dynamic EGG, meanwhile the last pacemaker interrogation indicated that ventricular pacing rate was 0. Routinely follow-up ECG was extended to 6 months after removal of TPPM. Results: Ten patients met the inclusion criteria for TPPM, aged (77.0±11.1) years, wirh 7 females. There were 7 patients with third-degree AVB, 1 patient with second-degree AVB, 2 patients with first degree AVB with PR interval>240 ms and LBBB with QRS duration>150 ms. TPPM were applied on the 10 patients for (35±7) days. Among 8 patients with high-degree AVB, 3 recovered to sinus rhythm, and 3 recovered to sinus rhythm with bundle branch block. The other 2 patients with persistent third-degree AVB received permanent pacemaker implantation. For the 2 patients with first-degree AVB and LBBB, PR interval shortened to within 200 ms. TPPM was successfully removed in 8 patients (8/10) at 1 month without permanent pacemaker implantation, of which 2 patients recovered within 24 hours after TAVR and 6 patients recovered 24 hours later after TAVR. No aggravation of conduction block or permanent pacemaker indication were observed in 8 patients during follow-up at 6 months. No procedure-related adverse events occurred in all patients. Conclusion: TPPM is reliable and safe to provide certain buffer time to distinguish whether a permanent pacemaker is necessary in patients with high-degree conduction block after TAVR.
