Pacing Using Cardiac Implantable Electric Device During TAVR: 10-Year Experience of a High-Volume Center

Magda Haum; Julius Steffen; Sebastian Sadoni; Hans Theiss; Konstantin Stark; Heidi Estner; Steffen Massberg; Simon Deseive; Korbinian Lackermair

doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2024.02.028

Pacing Using Cardiac Implantable Electric Device During TAVR: 10-Year Experience of a High-Volume Center

JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2024 Apr 22;17(8):1020-1028. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2024.02.028.

Authors

Magda Haum¹, Julius Steffen², Sebastian Sadoni³, Hans Theiss², Konstantin Stark², Heidi Estner², Steffen Massberg², Simon Deseive⁴, Korbinian Lackermair⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich, Germany; German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Munich, Germany. Electronic address: Magda.haum@med.uni-muenchen.de.
² Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich, Germany; German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Munich, Germany.
³ Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich, Germany.
⁴ Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich, Germany.

PMID: 38658116
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2024.02.028

Abstract

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective and safe therapy for severe aortic stenosis. Rapid or fast pacing is required for implantation, which can be performed via a pre-existing cardiac implantable electric device (CIED). However, safety data on CIEDs for pacing in TAVR are missing.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to elucidate procedural safety and feasibility of internal pacing with a CIED in TAVR.

Methods: Patients undergoing TAVR with a CIED were included in this analysis. Baseline characteristics, procedural details, and complications according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) criteria after TAVR were compared between both groups.

Results: A total of 486 patients were included. Pacing was performed using a CIED in 150 patients and a transient pacemaker in 336 patients. No differences in technical success according to VARC-3 criteria or procedure duration occurred between the groups. The usage of transient pacers for pacing was associated with a significantly higher bleeding rate (bleeding type ≥2 according to VARC-3-criteria; 2.0% vs 13.1%; P < 0.01). Furthermore, impairment of the CIED appeared in 2.3% of patients after TAVR only in the group in which pacing was performed by a transient pacer, leading to surgical revision of the CIED in 1.3% of all patients when transient pacemakers were used.

Conclusions: Internal pacing using a CIED is safe and feasible without differences of procedural time and technical success and might reduce bleeding rates. Furthermore, pacing using a CIED circumvents the risk of lead dislocation. Our data provide an urgent call for the use of a CIED for pacing during a TAVR procedure in general.

Keywords: TAVR; TAVR pacing; aortic stenosis; internal device.

MeSH terms

Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Aortic Valve Stenosis* / diagnostic imaging
Aortic Valve Stenosis* / physiopathology
Aortic Valve Stenosis* / surgery
Aortic Valve* / diagnostic imaging
Aortic Valve* / physiopathology
Aortic Valve* / surgery
Cardiac Pacing, Artificial*
Feasibility Studies*
Female
Hospitals, High-Volume*
Humans
Male
Pacemaker, Artificial*
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Severity of Illness Index
Time Factors
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement* / adverse effects
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement* / instrumentation
Treatment Outcome