Search

Purpose: Conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requiring pacemaker (PPM) implantation are a known complication and may be reversible. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the incidence and predictors for atrioventricular (AV) conduction recovery after TAVR. Methods: A single-center, retrospective study of patients undergoing PPM implantation for conduction disorders after TAVR between June 2011 and March 2019. Conduction recovery was defined as ≤ 1% ventricular pacing (VP) on follow-up PPM interrogation. Results: A total of 110 patients (mean age 83.6 ± 6.6 years, 46.8% female) were included. At a median follow-up of 438 days (interquartile range [IQR] 111–760 days), 35 patients (32%) had conduction recovery, with 50% of these occurring within the first 6 months. On multivariate analysis, predictors of conduction recovery include female sex (hazard ratio [HR] 2.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–6.4, p = 0.048), non-VP/non-complete heart block rhythm immediately post-TAVR (HR 5.2, 95% CI 1.5–18.1, p = 0.011), normal sinus rhythm 7 days post-TAVR (HR 3.9, 95% CI 1.7–9.2, p = 0.002), and smaller valve size (mm) (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.7–0.996, p = 0.045). Significant narrowing of the QRS and resolution of new-onset left bundle branch block within 1 month post-TAVR occurred in those with conduction recovery on PPM interrogation. Conclusions: One-third of patients receiving new PPM implantation have conduction recovery after TAVR, with 50% occurring within the first 6 months. Patient gender, valve size, and rhythm on serial ECGs after TAVR can help identify patients that may recover AV conduction. A conservative approach rather than immediate PPM implantation may be considered in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) can cause life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, but the characteristics and outcomes of this population are not well characterized. We sought to determine the characteristics and outcomes of patients with SCAD who suffered sudden cardiac arrest, whether treated with or without an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with SCAD between 2006 and 2016. Results: Eleven of 208 SCAD patients suffered sudden cardiac arrest (5.3%). Those who suffered cardiac arrest were more likely to have pregnancy-associated SCAD (27.3% vs 7.1%, p = 0.018). They were more likely to have left main (18.2% vs 1.0%, p = 0.01) or proximal coronary vessel involvement (36.4% vs 8.1%, p = 0.002), and with left ventricular ejection fraction of < 50% (45.5% vs 13.2%, p = 0.013). Percutaneous coronary intervention was more commonly performed in patients who suffered cardiac arrest (54.6% vs 8.6%, p < 0.001). Left main or proximal LAD involvement increased the odds of cardiac arrest by over 6-fold (OR 6.2, 95% CI 1.2–32.9, p = 0.03). Eight of the 11 patients suffered VT/VF arrest, of which one was treated with an ICD and one with a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator. Of these, no shocks were reported at follow-up and no ventricular arrhythmic events were reported in those not receiving defibrillator treatment. Conclusion: Sudden cardiac arrest in SCAD patients is associated with left main or proximal coronary lesions. Secondary prevention ICD did not show benefit in this cohort. Future larger studies are needed to determine the role of ICD therapy in SCAD patients who suffer cardiac arrest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]