Incidence, indications and predicting factors of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: As the number of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures is constantly increasing, it is important to consider common complications, such as pacemaker (PM) implantation, and their specific risk factors. AIMS: Echocardiographic, computed tomography and electrocardiographic data were analysed to determine the predicting factors, if any, associated with PM implantation. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients referred to Nancy University Hospital for a TAVI procedure from January 2013 to December 2015. Both Medtronic CoreValve and Edwards SAPIEN valves were implanted. Patients with preprocedurally implanted PMs and/or referred from another institution were excluded. RESULTS: Of 208 TAVI patients, 23 had a pre-existing PM and were excluded. A new PM was required in 38 patients (20.5%). Pre-existing right bundle branch block (RBBB), the use of the Medtronic CoreValve and large prostheses were identified as predictors of PM implantation (P=0.0361, P=0.0004 and P=0.0019, respectively). Using logistic regression, predictors of PM implantation included first-degree atrioventricular block (odds ratio 3.7, 95% confidence interval 1.5-9.1; P=0.0054) and large aortic annulus diameter in echocardiography (odds ratio 1.2, 95% confidence interval 1-1.4; P=0.0447), with a threshold of 24.1mm. For the combination of preTAVI PR duration >220ms and QRS duration >120ms, the positive predictive value for PM implantation reached 80%. CONCLUSION: Use of the Medtronic CoreValve, RBBB and first-degree atrioventricular block are major risk factors for post-TAVI PM implantation. In addition, large aortic annulus and large valvular prosthesis are independent risk factors for PM implantation. The combination of preTAVI prolonged PR interval and increased QRS duration could be used as a marker for periprocedural PM implantation.

Risk and outcome after ablation of isthmus-dependent atrial flutter in elderly patients.

PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH: To study the influence of age on the clinical presentation and long-term outcome of patients referred for atrial flutter (AFL) ablation. Age-related differences have been reported regarding the prognosis of arrhythmias. METHODS: A total of 1187 patients with a mean age 65±12 years consecutively referred for AFL ablation were retrospectively analyzed in the study. RESULTS: 445 (37.5%) patients were aged ≥70 (range 70 to 93) among which 345 were aged 70 to 79 years (29.1%) and 100 were aged ≥80 (8.4%). In multivariable analysis, AFL-related rhythmic cardiomyopathy and presentation with 1/1 AFL were less frequent (respectively adjusted OR = 0.44, 0.27-0.74, p = 0.002 and adjusted OR = 0.29, 0.16-0.52, p<0.0001). AFL ablation-related major complications were more frequent in patients ≥70 although remained lower than 10% (7.4% in ≥70 vs. 4.2% in <70, adjusted OR = 1.74, 1.04-2.89, p = 0.03). After 2.1±2.7 years, AFL recurrence was less frequent in patients ≥70 (adjusted OR = 0.54, 0.37-0.80, p = 0.002) whereas atrial fibrillation (AF) occurrence was as frequent in the 70-79 and ≥80 age subsets. As expected, cardiac mortality was higher in older patients. Patients aged ≥80 also had a low probability of AFL recurrence (5.0%) and AF onset (19.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Older patients represent 37.5% of patients referred for AFL ablation and displayed a <10% risk of ablation-related complications. Importantly, AFL recurrences were less frequent in patients ≥70 while AF occurrence was as frequent as in patients <70. Similar observations were made in patients ≥80 years. AFL ablation appears to be safe and efficient and should not be ruled out in elderly patients.