Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Interventional Cardiology: Reviews, Research, Resources logoLink to Interventional Cardiology: Reviews, Research, Resources
. 2015 May;10(2):98–102. doi: 10.15420/icr.2015.10.2.98

Permanent Pacemaker Implantation after TAVR – Predictors and Impact on Outcomes

Marcel Weber 1,✉, Jan-Malte Sinning 1, Christoph Hammerstingl 1, Nikos Werner 1, Eberhard Grube 1, Georg Nickenig 1
PMCID: PMC5808486  PMID: 29588683

Abstract

The number of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) worldwide is increasing steadily. Atrioventricular conduction disturbances, with or without the need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, are one of the most common adverse events after TAVR. Among transcatheter heart valves (THV), rates of conduction abnormalities vary from less than 10 % to more than 50 %. Depending on the reported data referred to, historical data showed that up to one-third of the patients required implantation of a PPM following TAVR. Although generally considered as a minor complication, PPM may have a profound impact on prognosis and quality of life after TAVR. Current data support the hypothesis that conduction abnormalities leading to pacemaker dependency result from mechanical compression of the conduction system by the prosthesis stent frame and individual predisposing conduction defects such as right bundle-branch block (RBBB). With several large randomised trials and registry studies having been published recently and second generation THV having been introduced, the debate about predictors for pacemaker implantation and their impact on outcome after TAVR is still ongoing.

Keywords: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), Pacemaker, Aortic stenosis, conduction abnormalities, left bundle branch block, atrioventricular block

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as the treatment of choice among inoperable patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and as a treatment alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for high-risk surgical patients[1–3]. Subsequently, the number of patients undergoing TAVR worldwide is steadily increasing and the complications related to valve implantation have been well-recognised.

Conduction disturbances after SAVR have been extensively documented and are in part predicted by pre-existing conduction abnormalities[4]. According to recent data, PPM implantation is necessary in approximately five per cent of patients undergoing SAVR. Among transcatheter heart valves (THV), rates of conduction abnormalities vary from less than 10 % to more than 50 %. Depending on the reported data referred to, historical data showed that up to one-third of patients required implantation of a PPM following TAVR[5]. Since the debate about predictors for pacemaker implantation and their impact on outcome after TAVR is still ongoing, this review will assess the current status quo.

Predictors of PPM Implantation

Pre-existing Conduction Abnormalities and Anatomical Conditions

Patients undergoing TAVR have similar rates of pre-existing conduction disease as SAVR patients, which are described at 40–50 % in both surgical and transcatheter populations[4,6]. In an early study with the self-expanding Medtronic CoreValve Prosthesis (MCP, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota), left bundle-branch block (LBBB) at baseline, increased interventricular septal diameter (>17 mm) and increased non-coronary aortic cusp thickness (>8 mm) were highly predictive for PPM (receiver operating characteristic area 0.93±0.055, P< 0.001)[7]. In this analysis, non-coronary aortic cusp thickness was the strongest predictor (P=0.002, correlation coefficient =0.655). A similar study by Baan et al.[8] found in 34 MCP patients that small left-ventricular outflow tract diameter, left axis deviation, significant mitral annular calcification and lower post-implant valve area are predicting post-TAVR PPM. Several studies showed that right bundle-branch block (RBBB) at baseline is one of the most significant predictors of PPM after TAVR[9–14]. Additionally, baseline first-degree atrioventricular (AV) block[10], left anterior hemiblock[12] and intraprocedural AV block[15] are important predictors for PPM dependence. Most of the previously mentioned studies looked at a low number of cases. In contrast to the recent meta-analysis of Siontis et al., RBBB (n=2158; risk ratio (RR): 2.89 (CI: 2.36–2.54), p<0.01), baseline AV block (n=1381; RR: 1.52 (CI: 1.15–2.01), p<0.01), and left anterior hemiblock (n=1065; RR: 1.62 (CI: 1.17–2.25), p<0.01) were the strongest predisposing conduction disturbances for PPM[16]. Figure 1 emphasises the close anatomical relationship of the cardiac conduction system referring to the aortic valve and highlights the importance of pre-existing conduction abnormalities as a predictor for PPM after TAVR.

Figure 1: Short Axis View Reconstruction of Aortic Valve by Computer Tomography.

Figure 1:

RVOT: right ventricular outflow tract, RCA: right coronary artery, LCA: left coronary artery, RCC: right coronary cusp, NCC: non-coronary cusp, LCC: left coronary cusp, LBB: left bundle-branch, HIS: HIS-bundle, LA: left atrium.

Open in a new tab

Prosthesis Type and Time of PPM

Prosthesis Type

The incidence of AV conduction disturbances as a result of TAVR and the subsequent requirement for permanent pacing differs between the two most widely used bioprostheses, the balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN valve (ESV) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) and the self-expanding MCP. PPM implantation has been reported with a rate between 5–14.2 % [2,13,17–19] for the former Edwards valves (Edwards SAPIEN and Edwards SAPIEN XT) and 13.3 % for the new Edwards SAPIEN 3 THV[20], whereas the need for PPM has been higher with use of the MCP (up to 24 % in the FRANCE-2 [French Aortic National CoreValve and Edwards] registry and 33 % in the UK CoreValve registry)[21,15].

Early data showed a more liberal pacemaker implantation strategy after MCP TAVR and resulted in higher PPM rates, whereas newer data of the Advance II trial, which were presented at EuroPCR 2014 (ADVANCE II: Low incidence of permanent pacemaker for self-expandable valve by Petronio A. S. et al. at Euro PCR 2014, May 22, Paris, France) show that PPM rate was reduced to 13.3 % at 30 days’ follow up when MCP was deployed according to best recommendation practice (implantation depths <6 mm). Recent data of the CoreValve Extreme Risk pivotal trial revealed a PPM implantation rate of 21.6 % at 30 days[22].

In addition to the above-mentioned THVs, four so-called next-generation devices have been evaluated in recent trials. The multicentre non-randomised DISCOVER trial (100 patients) recently assessed the outcomes of the non-metallic direct-flow medical THV in surgical high-risk patients. The device is fully repositionable and retrievable until polymer exchange. In DISCOVER, the overall PPM rate at 30 days was 17 %[23].

The REPRISE studies assessed the outcomes with the new mechanically expanding LOTUS valve, which can be fully retrieved, redeployed or repositioned. The 30-day results of the REPRISE II trial (120 patients), which was a prospective, single-arm, multicentre study showed a PPM rate of 28.6 % at 30 days[24], which might be explained by the fact that all patients with borderline aortic annulus had to undergo TAVR with the larger 27 mm prosthesis, since the 25 mm prosthesis was not available at that time.

Thirty-day outcomes from the multicentre European pivotal trial for transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the self-expanding Medtronic engager valve prosthesis (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA), which consists of a self-expanding nitinol frame and a bovine pericardial tissue valve, revealed a 30-day PPM rate of 26 %[25].

The transapical JenaValve™ THV system showed a 30-day pacemaker implantation rate of 9.1 %[26]. Other new transcatheter valves are currently under development, and will be evaluated in the near future.

Persistence of Conduction Abnormalities and time to Pacemaker Implantation:

Persistence of conduction disturbances and high-degree AV block over time is not yet clear, and seems to differ between MCP and ESV. Houthuizen reports approximately 40 % of patients developed a new LBBB after TAVI; most of these persisted at follow-up, but MCP had a twofold lower tendency to resolve[27]. A new LBBB occurs 2.5 times more often after MCP than after ESV implantation and is also associated with reduced recovery[28]. In another MCP analysis, a proportion of AV conduction disturbances after the intervention has been shown to recover over time at three months of follow-up, and only 40 % of the PPM patients for high-degree AVB still had an AVB underlying their paced rhythm[29]. Due to the relatively low sample size of these studies, this issue needs further investigation.

Data in relation to the appropriate time point of pacemaker implantation are rare. Simms et al. published a cohort of 100 TAVR patients who received the MCP. Average time to pacemaker implantation was four-and-a-half days (confidence interval: 2.8–6.2)[30]. In another cohort with the MCP prosthesis (n=270), median time to implantation of a pacemaker was four days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0 to 7.75 days)[15]. Bagur et al (n=411) reported that PPM was performed at a median of two days (IQR: 0–4 days) after TAVR with ESV[10].

The exact time point for PPM implantation is still an ongoing debate. Another aspect, which has to be kept in mind, is the fact that self-expanding prostheses may lead to delayed injuries of the conduction system. So far, there is no explicit data for the best time point for PPM implantation in patients after Boston Lotus, Medtronic engager or Jena valve implantation.

Pre- and Post-dilatation and Prosthesis Sizing

The close relationship of the conduction system to the aortic annulus may lead to a mechanical interaction between the prosthesis stent frame of the transcatheter valve prosthesis and the left bundle-branch, which in turn may translate into the occurrence of an LBBB and eventually into a higher grade or complete atrio-ventricular block. A study by Lange et al.[31] analysed the impact of valvuloplasty balloon catheter size on the need for PPM in a larger cohort of 237 patients without prior pacemaker, who underwent TAVR with the MCP. In this analysis, the overall incidence of PPM was 21.1 %, but was significantly higher when a 25 mm balloon was used (27.1 %) than when a 23 mm or smaller balloon was used (15.4 %) for the balloon valvuloplasty (BAV). When stratified by THV size (26 or 29 mm), there was still a stepwise increase in PPM rate with each increase in balloon size. This association of balloon size with need for a PPM remained significant after multivariable adjustment for baseline patient characteristics. These results suggest that pacemaker rates after TAVR may be reduced by using undersized BAV balloons or even avoidance of pre-dilation. Two randomised studies are currently ongoing to investigate direct TAVR without pre-dilatation with the MCP (SIMPLIFY TAVI Trial; NCT01539746) and the ESV (EASE-IT Trial; NCT02127580). Interestingly, in another study post-dilation after MCP, implantation had no effect on the requirement for PPM. The reason for this observation might be the relatively short time period when the aortic annulus is exposed to high pressure from repeated valvuloplasty[31]. Post-dilatation after ESV TAVR ranges between 20–41 %[32–34] and shows no impact on PPM rate. A recent analysis showed a low post-dilatation rate of 4 % after Edwards SAPIEN 3 TAVR[33].

Table 1: Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Author, no. patients Valve Type In-hospital /30-day incidence n (%) Multivariate predictors
D’Ancona et al.[41], n=322 Edwards SAPIEN 20 (6.2) Age
Bagur et al.[10], n=411 Edwards SAPIEN 30 (7.3) Pre-existing RBBB
Bleiziffer et al.[42], n=159 Edwards SAPIEN (n=35) CoreValve (n=124) Edwards SAPIEN 6 (17) CoreValve 33 (27) Peri-procedural complete AVB
Ledwoch et al.[13], n=1147 Edwards SAPIEN (n=232) CoreValve (n=912) Edwards SAPIEN 33 (14.2) CoreValve 352 (38.6) Absence of prior valve surgery Porcelain aorta CoreValve
Khawaja et al.[15] n=243 CoreValve 82 (33.3) Peri-procedural complete AVB Balloon pre-dilatation Prolonged baseline QRS duration 29 mm prosthesis
De Carlo et al.[12], n=275 CoreValve 66 (24.0) Depth of implantation Pre-existing RBBB Pre-existing LAHB Longer PR at baseline
Chorianopoulos et al.[11], N=130 CoreValve 46 (35.4) Pre-existing RBBB
Munoz-Garcia et al.[14], n=174 CoreValve 48 (27.6) Depth of implantation Pre-existing RBBB Use of the traditional system
Calvi et al.[9], n=162 CoreValve 52 (32.1) Pre-existing RBBB
Siontis et al.[16], n=11 210 CoreValve and Edwards SAPIEN Median 28 % (CoreValve) Median 6 % (Edwards SAPIEN) Male gender Pre-existing first-degree AV-block Pre-existing left anterior hemiblock Pre-existing right bundle-branch block Intraprocedural AV-block
Open in a new tab

CAD, coronary artery disease; LAHB, left anterior hemiblock; LVOT, left ventricular outflow tract; RBBB, right bundle-branch.

The degree of prosthesis oversizing may lead to a higher incidence of PPM. Schroeter et al. found larger or significantly oversized prostheses to be an independent risk factor for PPM implantation following TAVR with the MCP[35]. In contrast, a study of Binder et al. with 89 patients receiving a SAPIEN XT THV showed that annular area oversizing was not associated with new conduction disturbances and permanent pacemaker implantation[36]. If this difference can be explained by the fact that the ESV prosthesis is oversized to a lesser degree to prevent annulus rupture remains unclear and needs further investigation.

Implantation Depths and Approach

Many studies have shown that the CoreValve prosthesis implantation depth is a predictor for PPM. The deeper the CoreValve frame protrudes into the left ventricular outflow tract, the more likely the patient is to develop an LBBB. In an early study by Piazza et al.[37], the mean implantation depth was 10.3 mm in those patients with new LBBB versus 5.5 mm in those without LBBB. Another study proposed a cutoff of 6.0 mm as an independent predictor of the development of a high-degree AV block and the requirement for permanent pacing[29]. This finding was confirmed for the MCP prosthesis by several other recently published studies[8,38,39,12]. Additionally, implantation of balloon-expandable transfemoral THVs with increased implantation depth is associated with clinically significant new conduction disturbances and permanent pacemaker implantation[36]. These effects also apply to ESV implantation via a transapical approach[40].

The PPM incidence regarding TAVR approach is difficult to assess because patient population and risk profile are often different. A recent meta-analysis of Siontis et al.[16] suggested a trend towards lower risk of PPM after MCP TAVR with the transfemoral approach compared with the transsubclavian approach (p=0.07). The same meta-analysis found no difference in PPM risk after ESV TAVR depending on the approach (transapical versus transfemoral; n=2136; risk ratio: 0.89, 95 % CI: 0.64-1.25; p=0.89).

Cost and Outcome of PPM Implantation

Cost

Patients with AV conduction disturbances after TAVR are disposed to prolonged hospitalisation and use of in-hospital continuous telemetry[43], both of which result in a considerable increase of overall cost of the TAVR procedure. Data from the FRANCE registry found that receiving a pacemaker was associated with a 36 % increase in cost[44]. Gutmann et al. assessed elevated procedural costs of €1,946 in case of PPM implantation in a German healthcare analysis[45]. Compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), in-hospital costs were higher in TAVR patients than in SAVR patients (€40,802 versus €33,354, respectively; p=0.010)[46]). Reducing PPM rate would have an impact on the cost-effectiveness of TAVR relative to that of SAVR.

Outcome

The impact of new-onset LBBB, with or without need for PPM implantation, on patient outcome after TAVR is still under debate. Houthuizen et al. found negative effects of a procedure-related LBBB on survival in a group of 679 patients after TAVR. They described an all-cause mortality of 37.8 % (n=88) in 233 patients with new-onset LBBB and 24.0 % (n=107) in patients without LBBB (p=0.002) after a median follow-up of 450 days. Consecutively, a procedure-related LBBB was an independent predictor for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 1.54; confidence interval (CI): 1.12–2.10) in this cohort[47].

Schymik et al. confirmed that a persistent new-onset LBBB was associated with increased mortality in a cohort of 634 patients who were treated by either an MCP or ESV prosthesis. The one-year all-cause mortality rate was also higher in patients with persistent new-onset LBBB (20.8 %, n=41) than in patients without LBBB (13.0 %, n=57; p=0.010). Multivariate regression analysis revealed again that persistent new-onset LBBB was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality at one year (HR 1.84, 95 % CI 1.35–2.02).

However, Buellesfeld et al. recently published data on 353 patients undergoing TAVR with the CoreValve prosthesis and found that PPM implantation had no impact on major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events or mortality outcome one year after TAVR[48]. Other study groups found no difference in mortality regarding LBBB or PPM[49–51]. Hoffmann et al. found a significantly higher left ventricular ejection fraction in patients after TAVR without LBBB (59±10 %) as compared with those with LBBB during 12 months of follow-up (51±12 %; p=0.052), but found no difference in clinical outcome[52]. These findings were confirmed by Nazif et al. who presented the one-year results of the PARTNER trial and focused on new-onset LBBB which was not associated with significant differences in one-year mortality, cardiovascular mortality or repeat hospitalisation. However, it was associated with increased PPM implantation during hospitalisation (8.3 % versus 2.8 %, p=0.005) and the ejection fraction failed to improve after TAVR in patients with new LBBB and remained lower at six months to one year (52.8 % versus 58.1 %, p=0.001)[53]. The independent predictors of the outcome in patients with new-onset LBBB (including the protective or detrimental effect of pacemaker implantation after TAVR) are currently unclear and still need further investigation.

Clinical Implication

Temporarily inserted pacing leads are mandatory for rapid pacing during the procedure as well for at least 24 hours after TAVR for therapy of delayed bradycardia. Patients with self-expanding valves like the MCP should be monitored for at least 48 hours after TAVR[54]. In case of new-onset LBBB or AV block, ECG monitoring should be continued for five days. In particular, those patients with pre-existing conduction disturbances such as RBBB or first-degree AV block should be carefully monitored with daily ECG. Pacemaker rates after TAVR may be safely decreased by avoiding pre-dilatation or use of undersized balloons[31], as well as correct positioning of the prosthesis[37].

Future Considerations

Increasing data from observational studies involving new valve technologies, such as the Direct Flow Medical (Santa Rosa, CA, USA), the Lotus Aortic Valve prosthesis (Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, Massachusetts), the JenaValve™ system (JenaValve Technology GmbH, Munich, Germany), the transfemoral Medtronic Evolut R, and the transapical Medtronic Engager (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) show promising results and improve outcomes by minimising procedure-related complications. Future studies might give new answers on predictors and outcome after TAVR regarding PPM.

Conclusion

Despite being less invasive than open SAVR, TAVR remains associated with potential procedure-related complications. New LBBB and the need for PPM implantation are the most frequent adverse events after TAVR. The incidence of significant conduction disturbances is dependent on the TAVR prosthesis used and has decreased as a result of improved implantation techniques. In addition, next-generation devices with reduced interaction with the LVOT might further decrease conduction disturbances after TAVR. Minimising PPM rate is important, especially as TAVR technology could be increasingly applied to younger and healthier patients.

References

  • 1.Makkar RR, Fontana GP, Jilaihawi H et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement for inoperable severe aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(18):1696–1704. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1202277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(17):1597–1607. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1008232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(23):2187–2198. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1103510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bagur R, Manazzoni JM, Dumont E et al. Permanent pacemaker implantation following isolated aortic valve replacement in a large cohort of elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis. Heart. 2011;2011;97(20):1687–1694. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2011-300308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Erkapic D, De Rosa S, Kelava A et al. Risk for permanent pacemaker after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a comprehensive analysis of the literature. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2012;23(4):391–397. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2011.02211.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fraccaro C, Buja G, Tarantini G et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcome of conduction disorders after transcatheter self-expandable aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107(5):747–754. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.10.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Jilaihawi H, Chin D, Vasa-Nicotera M et al. Predictors for permanent pacemaker requirement after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the CoreValve bioprosthesis. Am Heart J. 2009;157(5):860–866. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2009.02.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Baan J, Jr., Yong ZY, Koch KT et al. Factors associated with cardiac conduction disorders and permanent pacemaker implantation after percutaneous aortic valve implantation with the CoreValve prosthesis. Am Heart J. 2010;159(3):497–503. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2009.12.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Calvi V, Conti S, Pruiti GP et al. Incidence rate and predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology : an International Journal of Arrhythmias and Pacing. 2012;34(2):189–195. doi: 10.1007/s10840-011-9634-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bagur R, Rodes-Cabau J, Gurvitch R et al. Need for permanent pacemaker as a complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis and similar baseline electrocardiographic findings. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5(5):540–551. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2012.03.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chorianopoulos E, Krumsdorf U, Pleger ST et al. Incidence of late occurring bradyarrhythmias after TAVI with the self-expanding CoreValve((R)) aortic bioprosthesis. Clin Res Cardiol. 2012;101(5):349–355. doi: 10.1007/s00392-011-0398-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.De Carlo M, Giannini C, Bedogni F et al. Safety of a conservative strategy of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic CoreValve implantation. Am Heart J. 2012;163(3):492–499. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2011.12.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ledwoch J, Franke J, Gerckens U Incidence and predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Analysis from the German transcatheter aortic valve interventions registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 14.Munoz-Garcia AJ, Hernandez-Garcia JM, Jimenez-Navarro MF et al. Factors predicting and having an impact on the need for a permanent pacemaker after CoreValve prosthesis implantation using the new Accutrak delivery catheter system. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5(5):533–539. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2012.03.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Khawaja MZ, Rajani R, Cook A et al. Permanent pacemaker insertion after CoreValve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: incidence and contributing factors (the UK CoreValve Collaborative). Circulation. 2011;2011;123(9):951–960. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.927152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Siontis GC, Juni P, Pilgrim T et al. Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(2):129–140. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.04.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Webb JG, Altwegg L, Boone RH Transcatheter aortic valve implantation; impact on clinical and valve-related outcomes. Circulation. 2009. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 18.Laynez A, Ben-Dor I, Barbash IM et al. Frequency of conduction disturbances after Edwards SAPIEN percutaneous valve implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2012;2012;110(8):1164–1168. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.05.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Eltchaninoff H, Prat A, Gilard M et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: early results of the FRANCE (French Aortic National CoreValve and Edwards) registry. Eur Heart J. 2011;32(2):191–197. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Webb J, Gerosa G, Lefèvre T et al. Multicenter evaluation of a next-generation balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2014;64(21):2235–2243. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.09.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hayashida K, Morice MC, Chevalier B et al. Sex-related differences in clinical presentation and outcome of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(6):566–571. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.10.877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Popma JJ, Adams DH, Reardon MJ et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a self-expanding bioprosthesis in patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme risk for surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(19):1972–1981. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.556. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Schofer J, Colombo A, Klugmann S et al. Prospective multicenter evaluation of the direct flow medical transcatheter aortic valve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(8):763–768. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.10.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Meredith Am IT, Walters DL, Dumonteil N et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis using a repositionable valve system: 30-day primary endpoint results from the REPRISE II study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(13):1339–1348. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.05.067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sündermann SH, Holzhey D, Bleiziffer S, Treede H. Falk V Medtronic Engager™ bioprosthesis for transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation. EuroIntervention. 2013;9(S):S97–S100. doi: 10.4244/EIJV9SSA19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Treede H, Mohr FW, Baldus S et al. Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the JenaValve system: acute and 30-day results of the multicentre CE-mark study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;2012;41(6):e131–8. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezs129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Houthuizen P, van der Boon RM, Urena M et al. Occurrence, fate and consequences of ventricular conduction abnormalities after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. EuroIntervention. 2014;9(10):1142–1150. doi: 10.4244/EIJV9I10A194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Franzoni I, Latib A, Maisano F et al. Comparison of incidence and predictors of left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the CoreValve versus the Edwards valve. Am J Cardiol. 2013;112(4):554–559. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.04.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Guetta V, Goldenberg G, Segev A et al. Predictors and course of high-degree atrioventricular block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the CoreValve Revalving System. Am J Cardiol. 2011;108(11):1600–1605. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.07.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Simms AD, Hogarth AJ, Hudson EA et al. Ongoing requirement for pacing post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement. Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery. 2013;17(2):328–333. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivt175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lange P, Greif M, Vogel A et al. vReduction of pacemaker implantation rates after CoreValve(R) implantation by moderate predilatation. EuroIntervention. 2014;9(10):1151–1157. doi: 10.4244/EIJV9I10A195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Nombela-Franco L, Rodes-Cabau J et al. Predictive factors, efficacy, and safety of balloon post-dilation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a balloon-expandable valve. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5(5):499–512. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2012.02.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Amat-Santos IJ, Dahou A, Webb J et al. Comparison of hemodynamic performance of the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 versus SAPIEN XT transcatheter valve. Am J Cardiol. 2014;114(7):1075–1082. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.07.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Daneault B, Koss E, Hahn RT et al. Efficacy and safety of postdilatation to reduce paravalvular regurgitation during balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(1):85–91. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.112.971614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Schroeter T, Linke A, Haensig M et al. Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation after Medtronic CoreValve bioprosthesis implantation. Europace. 2012;14(12):1759–1763. doi: 10.1093/europace/eus191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Binder RK, Webb JG, Toggweiler S et al. Impact of post-implant SAPIEN XT geometry and position on conduction disturbances, hemodynamic performance, and paravalvular regurgitation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(5):462–468. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2012.12.128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Piazza N, Onuma Y, Jesserun E et al. Early and persistent intraventricular conduction abnormalities and requirements for pacemaking after percutaneous replacement of the aortic valve. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2008;1(3):310–316. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2008.04.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ferreira ND, Caeiro D, Adao L et al. Incidence and predictors of permanent pacemaker requirement after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a self-expanding bioprosthesis. Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE. 2010;2010;33(11):1364–1372. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2010.02870.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Munoz-Garcia AJ, Hernandez-Garcia JM, Jimenez-Navarro MF et al. Changes in atrioventricular conduction and predictors of pacemaker need after percutaneous implantation of the CoreValve(R). Aortic valve prosthesis. Revista española de cardiologia. 2010;63(12):1444–1451. doi: 10.1016/s1885-5857(10)70279-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Gutierrez M, Rodes-Cabau J, Bagur R et al. Electrocardiographic changes and clinical outcomes after transapical aortic valve implantation. Am Heart J. 2009;158(2):302–308. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2009.05.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.D’Ancona G, Pasic M, Unbehaun A. Hetzer R Permanent pacemaker implantation after transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery. 2011;13(4):373–376. doi: 10.1510/icvts.2011.274456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bleiziffer S, Ruge H, Horer J et al. Predictors for new-onset complete heart block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(5):524–530. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2010.01.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Nazif TM, Dizon JM, Hahn RT et al. Predictors and clinical outcomes of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the PARTNER (Placement of AoRtic TraNscathetER Valves) trial and registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(1 Pt A):60–69. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2014.07.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Chevreul K, Brunn M, Cadier B et al. Cost of transcatheter aortic valve implantation and factors associated with higher hospital stay cost in patients of the FRANCE (FRench Aortic National CoreValve and Edwards) registry. Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases. 2013;106(4):209–219. doi: 10.1016/j.acvd.2013.01.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Gutmann A, Kaier K, Sorg S et al. Analysis of the additional costs of clinical complications in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the German health care system. International Journal of Cardiology. 2015;179:231–237. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.11.095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Osnabrugge RL, Head SJ, Genders TS et al. Costs of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;94(6):1954–1960. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.07.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Houthuizen P, Van Garsse LA, Poels TT et al. Left bundle-branch block induced by transcatheter aortic valve implantation increases risk of death. Circulation. 2012;126(6):720–728. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.101055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Buellesfeld L, Stortecky S, Heg D et al. Impact of permanent pacemaker implantation on clinical outcome among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(6):493–501. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.03.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Linke A, Wenaweser P, Gerckens U et al. Treatment of aortic stenosis with a self-expanding transcatheter valve: the international multi-centre ADVANCE study. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(38):2672–2684. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Testa L, Latib A, De Marco F et al. Clinical impact of persistent left bundle-branch block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with corevalve revalving system. Circulation. 2013;127(12):1300–1307. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.001099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Urena M, Webb JG, Tamburino C et al. Permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: impact on late clinical outcomes and left ventricular function. Circulation. 2014;129(11):1233–1243. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.005479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hoffmann R, Herpertz R, Lotfipour S et al. Impact of a new conduction defect after transcatheter aortic valve implantation on left ventricular function. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5(12):1257–1263. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2012.08.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Nazif TM, Williams MR, Hahn RT et al. Clinical implications of new-onset left bundle-branch block after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: analysis of the PARTNER experience. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(24):1599–1607. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Holmes DR, Jr., Mack MJ, Kaul S et al. 2012 ACCF/AATS/SCAI/STS expert consensus document on transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(13):1200–1254. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Interventional Cardiology Review are provided here courtesy of Radcliffe Cardiology

RESOURCES