Marca-passo permanente após implante percutâneo valvular aórtico: a necessidade é maior que imaginávamos? / Permanent pacemaker after percutaneous aortic valve implantation: is the need greater than we had anticipated?

RESUMO

O implante percutâneo valvular aórtico é uma alternativa promissora no tratamento da estenose aórtica grave de pacientes com elevado risco cirúrgico. No entanto, parte desses pacientes pode desenvolver distúrbios do sistema de condução elétrico do coração e necessidade de implante de marca-passo permanente. O mecanismo das alterações do sistema de condução não está completamente elucidado. Nosso objetivo é avaliar a frequênia e os fatores relacionados à necessidade de marca-passo permanente em nosso meio. Método: Série de casos com descrição das variáveis absolutas e relativas associadas à necessidade de marca-passo permanente em pacientes submetidos a implante percutâneo valvular aórtico no Instituto de Cardiologia do Rio Grande do Sul. Resultados: Entre novembro de 2008 e novembro de 2009, 10 pacientes foram submetidos a implante percutâneo valvular...

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous aortic valve implantation (PAVI) is a promising alternative treatment for severe aortic stenosis in high surgical risk patients. However, part of these patients may develop electrical conduction system disturbances and require permanent pacemaker implantation. The mechanism of such electrical conduction system disturbances has not been totally elucidated. Our objective is to assess the frequency and factors related to the need of a permanent pacemaker (PPM) in this scenario. METHOD: A series of cases describing absolute and relative variables associated to PPM implantation in patients submitted to PAVI at Instituto de Cardiologia do Rio Grande do Sul. RESULTS: Between November 2008 and November 2009, ten patients were submitted to PAVI using the CoreValveTM prosthesis. Two patients who died due to complications not associated to the conduction system disturbances were excluded. The procedure was successfully carried out in the eight remaining patients, with gradient reduction between the left ventricle and aorta and symptomatic relief. Most of the patients were women (75%) and mean age was 86 years. PPM was required in six patients (75%) after PAVI. The single procedure related event was the development of left bundle branch block (LBBB). During clinical follow-up, one patient resumed sinus rhythm, two alternated their own rhythm with the pacemaker rhythm and three remain totally dependent of artificial stimulus. CONCLUSIONS: We observed an increased need of PPM after PAVI and the development of LBBB seems to be associated to it. Additional and powered studies, comparing other techniques, are required to define the exact incidence of rhythm disturbances caused by PAVI.