CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

经导管主动脉瓣置换

科研文章

荐读文献

Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty as a Bridge to Aortic Valve Replacement: A Contemporary Nationwide Perspective Transcatheter versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Prior Cardiac Surgery in the Randomized PARTNER 2A Trial Infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a nationwide study Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Short Length of Stay After Elective Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Is Not Associated With Increased Early or Late Readmission Risk Delirium After TAVR: Crosspassing the Limit of Resilience Decline in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction During Follow-Up in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Clinical impact of conduction disturbances in transcatheter aortic valve replacement recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Role of Multimodality Imaging in Common and Complex Clinical Scenarios

Clinical TrialSeptember 2019

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Left Ventricular Rapid Pacing Via the Valve Delivery Guidewire in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

B Faurie, G Souteyrand, the EASY TAVI investigators. Keywords: left-ventricular stimulation; left-ventricular pacing; transcatheter aortic valve implantation; transcatheter aortic valve replacement

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Rapid ventricular pacing is necessary to ensure cardiac standstill during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

 

OBJECTIVES - We investigated whether left ventricular (LV)-stimulation via a guidewire reduced procedure duration while maintaining efficacy and safety compared with standard right ventricular (RV)-stimulation.

 

 

METHODS - This is a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, superiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI with a Sapien valve (Edwards Lifesciences) were allocated to LV- or RV-stimulation. The primary endpoint was procedure duration. Secondary endpoints included efficacy, safety, and cost at 30 days. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02781896).

 

RESULTS - Between May 2017 and May 2018, 307 patients were randomised but 4 were excluded because they did not receive the intended treatment: 303 patients were analysed in the LV- (n=151) or RV-stimulation (n=152) groups. Mean procedure duration was significantly shorter in the LV-stimulation group (48.4±16.9 vs. 55.6±26.9 min, p=0.0013), with a difference of -0.12 (95% CI -0.20 to -0.05) in the log transformed procedure duration (p=0.0012). Effective stimulation was similar in the LV- and RV-stimulation groups: 124 (84.9%) vs. 128 (87.1%), p=0.60. Safety of stimulation was also similar in the LV- and RV-stimulation groups: procedural success occurred in 151 (100%) vs. 151 (99.3%) patients (p=0.99); 30-day MACE-TAVI occurred in 21 (13.9%) vs. 26 (17.1%) patients (p=0.44); fluoroscopy time was lower in the LV-stimulation group (13.48±5.98 vs. 14.60±5.59, p=0.02) as was cost (18,807±1,318 vs. 19,437±2,318, p=0.001).

 

CONCLUSIONS -  Compared with RV-stimulation, LV-stimulation during TAVI was associated with significantly reduced procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and cost, with similar efficacy and safety.