Advertisement
Heart, Lung and Circulation

High Incidence of Transient Permanent Pacemaker Rate After Rapid Deployment Valve Replacement: Insights of a 9-Year Single-Center Experience

Published:September 22, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2022.08.003

      Introduction

      The incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) remains debated. Expertise in this field has significantly increased over the last decade. This study aimed to investigate the need for PPI following implantation of a rapid deployment (RD) valve.

      Methods

      Analysis of n=372 patients who underwent Edwards INTUITY (n=251) and Perceval (n=121) valve replacement at the current institution between May 2012 and August 2018 was performed. Coronary artery bypass graft procedures were additionally performed in patients with coronary artery disease. Baseline, preoperative and postoperative outcomes were examined regarding correctness and completeness of the procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Version 23.0.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA).

      Results

      A total of 372 patients (aged 75±6.3 years) with a high grade of aortic valve stenosis underwent either Edwards INTUITY (67%) or Perceval (33%) valve replacement. Seventy-six (76) patients (20%) presented with preoperative conduction disorders. Sixty patients (60) (16%) underwent PPI, which in most cases was performed during the first month after the initial operation. Follow-up was performed up to 9 years, presenting a persistent pacemaker dependency rate of 50% among all patients who underwent PPI. Twenty (20) (40%) PPI recipients showed no dependency on pacemaker, while 10 (10%) required temporary pacemaker support. Mean length of ICU stay was 4±5.1 days and in-hospital stay was 8.2±7.6 days.

      Conclusions

      The incidence of PPI after RD valve implantation still remains high compared with conventional aortic valve replacement. However, this study shows that this phenomenon appears to be transient in a significant proportion of the patients undergoing RD valve replacement. These findings might contribute to the scientific discussion and should be taken into consideration for the indication of RD valve replacement.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Heart, Lung and Circulation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Ensminger S.
        • et al.
        Rapid Deployment Versus Conventional Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018; 71: 1417-1428
        • Romano M.A.
        • et al.
        Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2018; 106: 685-690
        • Borger M.A.
        • et al.
        A randomized multicenter trial of minimally invasive rapid deployment versus conventional full sternotomy aortic valve replacement.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99: 17-25
        • Kocher A.A.
        • et al.
        One-year outcomes of the Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis with a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve (TRITON) trial: A prospective multicenter study of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement with the EDWARDS INTUITY Valve System.
        J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013; 145: 110-116
        • Abdel-Wahab M.
        • et al.
        Transcatheter Versus Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity-Matched Analysis From the German Aortic Valve Registry.
        JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020; 13: 2642-2654
        • Eghbalzadeh K.
        • et al.
        SAVR versus TAVI: What about the Hemodynamic Performance? An In Vivo and In Vitro Analysis.
        Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020; 68: 608-615
        • Rahmanian P.B.
        • et al.
        Determination of risk factors for pacemaker requirement following rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement.
        Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2018; 27: 215-221
        • Barnhart G.R.
        • et al.
        TRANSFORM (Multicenter Experience With Rapid Deployment Edwards INTUITY Valve System for Aortic Valve Replacement) US clinical trial: Performance of a rapid deployment aortic valve.
        J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017; 153: 241-251
        • Liakopoulos O.J.
        • et al.
        Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement with the Perceval S and Intuity Elite.
        Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021; 69: 412-419
        • Shrestha M.
        • et al.
        European multicentre experience with the sutureless Perceval valve: clinical and haemodynamic outcomes up to 5 years in over 700 patients.
        Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016; 49: 234-241
        • Liakopoulos O.J.
        • et al.
        Direct Comparison of the Edwards Intuity Elite and Sorin Perceval S Rapid Deployment Aortic Valves.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2018; 105: 108-114
        • Fadahunsi O.O.
        • et al.
        Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Analysis From the U.S. Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT Registry.
        JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9: 2189-2199
        • Dawkins S.
        • Hobson A.R.
        • Kalra P.R.
        • Tang A.T.M.
        • Monro J.L.
        • Dawkins K.D.
        Permanent pacemaker implantation after isolated aortic valve replacement: incidence, indications, and predictors.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2008; 85: 108-112
        • Fischlein T.
        • Gersak B.
        • Pfeiffer S.
        How to prevent a pacemaker implantation after sutureless bioprosthesis.
        J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016; 152: 635-636
        • Wahlers T.C.
        • Rahmanian P.B.
        Rapid Deployment Valve Implantation using the EDWARDS Intuity Valve System: A Word of Caution regarding Sizing in Calcified Sinotubular Junctions.
        Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015; 63: 504-507
        • Borger M.A.
        Avoiding pacemaker implantation with sutureless valves: Staying ‘on pace’ in the era of transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
        J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016; 152: 636-637
        • Rahimtoola S.H.
        The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch.
        Circulation. 1978; 58: 20-24
        • Al-Sarraf N.
        • et al.
        Cross-clamp time is an independent predictor of mortality and morbidity in low- and high-risk cardiac patients.
        Int J Surg. 2011; 9: 104-109
        • Deutsch O.
        • Deisenhofer I.
        • Koch-Buettner K.
        • Lange R.
        • Krane M.
        Need for permanent pacemaker implantation following implantation of the rapid deployment valve in combined procedures: a single centre cohort study.
        J Thorac Dis. 2021; 13: 2128-2136
        • Folliguet T.A.
        • Laborde F.
        • Zannis K.
        • Ghorayeb G.
        • Haverich A.
        • Shrestha M.
        Sutureless perceval aortic valve replacement: results of two European centers.
        Ann. Thorac Surg. 2012; 93: 1483-1488
        • Forcillo J.
        • et al.
        Perioperative outcomes with sutureless versus stented biological aortic valves in elderly persons.
        J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016; 151: 1629-1636
        • Andreas M.
        • et al.
        Conventional versus rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement: a single-centre comparison between the Edwards Magna valve and its rapid-deployment successor.
        Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016; 22: 799-805
        • Alasti M.
        • et al.
        Long-term pacemaker dependency and impact of pacing on mortality following transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the LOTUS valve.
        Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 92: 777-782
        • Smith C.R.
        • et al.
        Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients.
        N Engl J Med. 2011; 364: 2187-2198
        • Reardon M.J.
        • et al.
        Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients.
        N Engl J Med. 2017; 376: 1321-1331
        • Leon M.B.
        • et al.
        Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients.
        N Engl J Med. 2016; 374: 1609-1620
        • Mack M.J.
        • et al.
        Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients.
        N Engl J Med. 2019; 380: 1695-1705
        • Popma J.J.
        • et al.
        Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Valve in Low-Risk Patients.
        N Engl J Med. 2019; 380: 1706-1715
        • Meco M.
        • et al.
        Sutureless aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a meta-analysis of comparative matched studies using propensity score matching.
        Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2018; 26: 207-209
        • Dalén M.
        • et al.
        Aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis versus minimally invasive sternotomy with a sutureless bioprosthesis.
        Eur J CardioThorac Surg. 2016; 49: 220-227
        • Ferrari E.
        • et al.
        Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement versus standard bioprosthesis implantation.
        J Card Surg. 2017; 32: 322-327
        • Wahlers T.C.W.
        • et al.
        Outcomes of a Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Versus Its Conventional Counterpart: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.
        Innovations (Phila). 2018; 13: 177-183
        • Thiele H.
        • et al.
        Comparison of newer generation self-expandable vs balloon-expandable valves in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the randomized SOLVE-TAVI trial.
        Eur Heart J. 2020; 41: 1890-1899
        • Abdelghani M.
        • et al.
        Bioprosthetic Valve Performance After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Self-Expanding Versus Balloon-Expandable Valves in Large Versus Small Aortic Valve Annuli: Insights From the CHOICE Trial and the CHOICE-Extend Registry.
        JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 11: 2507-2518
        • Abdel-Wahab M.
        • et al.
        Comparison of balloon-expandable vs self-expandable valves in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the CHOICE randomized clinical trial.
        JAMA. 2014; 311: 1503-1514
        • Coti I.
        • et al.
        Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valves for Patients With a Small Aortic Root: A Single-Center Experience.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2020; 110: 1549-1556
        • Abdelghani M.
        • et al.
        Impact of prosthesis-iteration evolution and sizing practice on the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
        Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 93: 971-979
        • Petronio A.S.
        • et al.
        Optimal Implantation Depth and Adherence to Guidelines on Permanent Pacing to Improve the Results of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Medtronic CoreValve System: The CoreValve Prospective, International, Post-Market ADVANCE-II Study.
        JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8: 837-846