CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

经皮左心耳封堵

科研文章

荐读文献

Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion for Patients in Atrial Fibrillation Suboptimal for Warfarin Therapy: 5-year Results of the PLAATO (Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Transcatheter Occlusion) Study Does pulsed field ablation regress over time? A quantitative temporal analysis of pulmonary vein isolation Single direct oral anticoagulant therapy in stable patients with atrial fibrillation beyond 1 year after coronary stent implantation 2015 ACC/HRS/SCAI Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Device Societal Overview Management and outcomes of patients with left atrial appendage thrombus prior to percutaneous closure Transseptal puncture versus patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect access for left atrial appendage closure Alcohol consumption, cardiac biomarkers, and risk of atrial fibrillation and adverse outcomes Detection of Device-Related Thrombosis Following Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion A Comparison Between Cardiac Computed Tomography and Transesophageal Echocardiography​: A Comparison Between Cardiac Computed Tomography and Transesophageal Echocardiography Frailty and Clinical Outcomes of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Older Adults With Atrial Fibrillation: A Cohort Study Gut microbiota dysbiosis promotes age-related atrial fibrillation by lipopolysaccharide and glucose-induced activation of NLRP3-inflammasome
|<< 1 2 3 4 >>|

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) 1.171.49; P < 0.001], cardiac death (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.201.78; P < 0.001), heart failure hospitalization (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.051.72; P = 0.02), and PPI (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.582.27; 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 1.111.25; P < 0.001) and heart failure hospitalization (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.031.36; P = 0.02). Permanent pacemaker implantation was not associated with an increased risk of cardiac death (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.671.05; 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.