Table 2.

Pacemaker-related details in studies including >250 patients (n = 23)

Study	Indications for PPI	Timing of PPI, d∗	PPI rate	Dependency definition	Dependency rate	Dependency follow-up, mo∗	Multivariable predictors of PPI	Association	PPI-related complications
Bjerre Thygesen et al9	100% AVB	na	27.4%	Resolution of conduction abnormalities	50%	na	na	na	na
Urena et al10	75.3% AVB 7.1% SSS 7.9% bradycardia 9.6% others	3	15.4%	“paced rhythm” reported	66.9%	12	na	•PPI protective factor for the occurrence of unexpected (sudden or unknown) death •Negative effect on left ventricular function over time	na
Nazif et al11	79% AVB 17.3% SSS	3	8.8%	“ventricular pacing” reported	50.5%	12	•Pre-existing RBBB •Prosthesis to left ventricle outflow tract diameter ratio •Left ventricle -end diastolic diameter	•Longer duration of hospitalization •Greater rates of repeat hospitalization and mortality or repeat hospitalization at 1 y	na
Van Gils et al12	99% AVB 1% SSS	2	41%	% ventricular pacing rhythm reported	89%	12	•LOTUS valve •Greater BMI before TAVI	•RBBB at baseline associated with greater PPI	na
Raelson et al13	82% AVB	3	9%	No intrinsic ventricular activity during pacing at 30 bpm	39%	1	na	na	na
Dumonteil et al14	88.9% AVB 5.9% others	3	32%	“paced rhythm” reported	55.4%	12	•Baseline RBBB •Left ventricle outflow tract overstretch >10%	•Trend lower PPI rate at 30 d with shallower (≤5 mm) implant depth	na
Kaplan et al15	79% AVB 21% others	2,5	13.1%	High-grade AVB with a ventricular escape rate of less than 40 beats/min on device interrogation	21.9%	12	na	•Use of SE valves and postballoon dilatation associated with markedly increased risk of PPM dependency	na
Chamandi et al16	76.7% AVB 5.6% SSS 3.1% Bradycardia 14.6% others	2	19.8%	100% right ventricular pacing	27.4%	48	na	•PPI greater rates of rehospitalization due to heart failure and combined end point of mortality or heart failure rehospitalization •PPI lesser improvement in left ventricle ejection fraction over time, particularly if reduced before TAVI	na
Gaede et al17	90% AVB 8% SSS 2% Bradycardia	4	14.7%	Ventricular pacing >95%	29.5%	2.4	•Pre-existing RBBB •CoreValve prosthesis	Predictors of lack of recovery of AVB •Previous RBBB •Greater mean aortic valve gradient •Postdilatation of the prosthesis	na
Gonska et al18	85.% AVB 10.1% Bradycardia 4.8% others	na	24.4%	“ventricular pacing” reported	30.9%	1	na	•PPI without significant impact on survival or combined end point of major adverse events within 1 y	1.8% reoperation due to lead dislocation 2.4% hematomas/bleeding at the site of the pacemaker
Marzahn et al19	89% AVB 5.5% Bradycardia 4.1% SSS 1.4% others	na	16.9%	“right ventricular pacing %” reported	55%	12	na	na	na
Nadeem et al20	na	na	21.7%	“right ventricular pacing %” reported	45.5%	12	na	•PPI more likely to have heart failure admissions •PPI trend toward increased mortality	na
Campelo-Parada et al21	84.3% AVB 9.3% Bradycardia Others 6.2%	na	9.2%	Ventricular pacing >1% at 1 mo = AVB resolution	67.2%	1	na	•BAV associated with increased risk of conduction abnormalities persistence	na
Mirolo et al22	68.8% AVB 30% others	2,5	9.3%	Ventricular pacing ≥ 1% = significant	75%	2.9	na	na	1.25% endocarditis lead leading to pacemaker explanation 2.5% partial left pneumothorax secondary to subclavian vein puncture 1.25% ventricular lead deplacement
Van Gils et al23	96% AVB 5% SSS	5	9.3%	Less than 20% ventricular pacing over 6 mo' follow-up	25%	6	na	na	na
Takahashi et al24	na	na	16.4%	Absence, inadequate intrinsic ventricular rhythm, or ventricular pacing >95% in pacemaker interrogation during follow-up (PPM on VVI 30/min)	52.8%	13	na	•DDD mode and SE valves use associated with pacemaker dependency	na
Chan et al25	na	na	13.1%	Ventricular pacing reported	59%	12	na	na	1.6% atrial lead dislodgement 6% ventricular lead dislodgement
Ghannam et al26	100% AVB	2,4	14%	No recovery of AV nodal conduction if CHB, high-grade AVB, or native ventricular rate <50 beats/min in absence of normal AV conduction	50%	12	na	•Larger aortic annulus less likely to recover conduction	1.2% (1 patient with right ventricular lead fracture)
Costa et al27	84.8% AVB 4.1%SSS 11% Others	na	13%	Absence of an escape or intrinsic rhythm for 30 s during temporary back-up pacing at a rate of 30 bpm	33.3%	12	na	•PPI associated with increased 6 y mortality •Baseline RBBB greater chance of being dependent at follow-up	na
Dolci et al28	80%AVB 11% Bradycardia 9% others	4	13%	“paced rhythm” reported	7%	12	•Baseline RBBB •QRS width immediately after TAVI	na	na
Tovia-Brodie et al29	92% AVB 8% others	na	8.8%	No need for ventricular pacing defined as <1% ventricular pacing and intrinsic 1:1 AV conduction with the device programmed to VVI 30 beats per minute	39%	28,2	•Baseline long PR interval •Use of newer generation valves	na	3.7% tamponade
Junquera et al30	na	6	12.7%	AVB/CHB recovery = ventricular pacing rate <1%	33.4%	12	na	na	na
Meduri et al31	90% AVB 6% Bradycardia 4% others	2	28.4%	Patients who were symptomatic or did not have a native rhythm + capture of the percentage of paced ventricular beats	50%	12	•Baseline RBBB •Mean depth of valve implantation	•Medically treated diabetes mellitus in LOTUS valve patients	na
Total	82.7% AVB 2.7% SSS 2.8% bradycardia 11.8% Others	3.2	17%	na	na	11.8	na	na	na

Values are n (%). PPI, Pacemaker implantation; AVB, atrioventricular block, na, not available; SSS, sick sinus syndrome; RBBB, right bundle branch block; BMI, body mass index; TAVI, transcatheter aortic valve implantation; SE, self-expandable; BAV, bicuspid aortic valve; PPM, permanent pacemaker; VVI, single-chamber device; DDD, dual-chamber device; AV, atrioventricular; CHB, complete heart block.

^∗Follow-up is reported as mean or median as given by the authors.