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

2020 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Conduction Disturbances in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee Acute Aortic Syndrome Revisited: JACC State-of-the-Art Review Frailty in Older Adults Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement: The FRAILTY-AVR Study Edoxaban versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for Leaflet Thrombosis and Cerebral Thromboembolism after TAVR: The ADAPT-TAVR Randomized Clinical Trial Computed tomography angiography-derived extracellular volume fraction predicts early recovery of left ventricular systolic function after transcatheter aortic valve replacement Empagliflozin, Health Status, and Quality of Life in Patients with Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: The EMPEROR-Preserved Trial Minimum Core Data Elements for Evaluation of TAVR: A Scientific Statement by PASSION CV, HVC, and TVT Registry Guideline Update on Indications for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Based on the 2020 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines for Management of Valvular Heart Disease Impact of Incomplete Coronary Revascularization on Late Ischemic and Bleeding Events after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Evaluation and Management of Aortic Stenosis in Chronic Kidney Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Review Article03 January 2020

JOURNAL:Eur Heart J. Article Link

Clinical impact of conduction disturbances in transcatheter aortic valve replacement recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

L Faroux, S Chen, J Rodés-Cabau et al. Keywords: heart failure; left bundle-branch block; proton pump inhibitors; persistence pacemaker;permanent transcatheter aortic-valve implantation

ABSTRACT


AIMS - The clinical impact of new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (NOP-LBBB) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) recipients remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate the impact of (i) periprocedural NOP-LBBB and PPI post-TAVR on 1-year all-cause death, cardiac death, and heart failure hospitalization and (ii) NOP-LBBB on the need for PPI at 1-year follow-up.

 

METHODS AND RESULTS - We performed a systematic search from PubMed and EMBASE databases for studies reporting raw data on 1-year clinical impact of NOP-LBBB or periprocedural PPI post-TAVR. Data from 30 studies, including 7792 patients (12 studies) and 42 927 patients (21 studies) for the evaluation of the impact of NOP-LBBB and PPI after TAVR were sourced, respectively. NOP-LBBB was associated with an increased risk of all-cause death [risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17–1.49; P < 0.001], cardiac death (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.20–1.78; P < 0.001), heart failure hospitalization (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.05–1.72; P = 0.02), and PPI (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.58–2.27; P < 0.001) at 1-year follow-up. Periprocedural PPI after TAVR was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11–1.25; P < 0.001) and heart failure hospitalization (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.03–1.36; P = 0.02). Permanent pacemaker implantation was not associated with an increased risk of cardiac death (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67–1.05; P = 0.13).

 

CONCLUSION - NOP-LBBB and PPI after TAVR are associated with an increased risk of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization at 1-year follow-up. Periprocedural NOP-LBBB also increased the risk of cardiac death and PPI within the year following the procedure. Further studies are urgently warranted to enhance preventive measures and optimize the management of conduction disturbances post-TAVR.