Safety and efficacy of routine lv pacing wire for tavr with balloon expandable valves

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a treatment option for patients (pts) with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) regardless of surgical risk, and procedural steps are constantly being refined. Direct pacing over the left ventricular (LV) guidewire has been adopted to refine and streamline TAVI procedures. In this study, we sought to determine how many pts underwent TAVR using LVWP; the incidence of loss of pacemaker capture (LPC) - as defined as the presence of non-captured beats during fluoroscopy; the occurrence of valve malpositioning, migration or embolization; and the need for RVTP during THV deployment (because of stimulation failure) or permanent pacemaker after TAVR. METHODS: Single-center, observational, retrospective study. From Jun 2020 to Jun 2023, all consecutive pts who underwent TAVI with BEV for severe and symptomatic, native AS ou aortic bioprosthesis dysfunction were selected. Pacing was performed at 180 bpm, and BP needed to be reduced to 50 mmHg with a pulse-pressure of 10 mmHg before implanting BEV. RESULTS: 147 pts with a mean age of 78 ± 6.6 y, 45.5% female and STS of 3.4 ± 1.8 % were selected. LV ejection fraction was 55.7% ± 11.8% and mean AV area and transaortic valve gradient were 0.6 ± 0.16 cm² and 56.1 ± 16.6 mmHg, respectively. LVWP was the predominant method of rapid stimulation (135 pts, 91,8%); the remaining pts underwent conventional RVTP due to baseline right-bundle branch block RBBB (n=10), 1st-degree AV block plus left anterior fascicular block (n=1) and cardiogenic shock (n=1). In patients selected for LVWP pacing, no RVTP was required because of stimulation failure. LPC was noted during THV implantation in 18 cases (13.3%), but no malpositioning or embolization were observed. The overall need for permanent pacemaker was 8% none occurred after LV pacing and 100% after RV pacing; among those with pre-existing RBBB, 8 (80%) required a permanent pacemaker after TAVI. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, LVWP was a simple, safe and valuable alternative for rapid pacing and could be applied in the majority of pts selected for TAVR with a BEV, providing reliable cardiac stimulation with a low incidence of THV migration (0.74%). No valve embolization or cardiac tamponade was noted. For patients with pre-existing RBBB or other conduction disorders with increased risk of permanent pacemaker, RVTP should be recommended.