Search

Background: Atrioventricular conduction abnormalities after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are common. The value of electrophysiological study (EPS) for risk stratification of high-grade atrioventricular block (HG-AVB) and guidance of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is poorly defined. Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify EPS parameters associated with HG-AVB and determine the value of EPS-guided PPM implantation after TAVI. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating the value of EPS parameters for risk stratification of TAVI-related HG-AVB and for guidance of PPM implantation among patients with equivocal PPM indications after TAVI. Results: Eighteen studies (1230 patients) were eligible. In 7 studies, EPS was performed only after TAVI, whereas in 11 studies EPS was performed both before and after TAVI. Overall PPM implantation rate for HG-AVB was 16%. AV conduction intervals prolonged after TAVI, with the AH and HV intervals showing the largest magnitude of changes. Pre-TAVI HV >70 ms and the absolute value of the post-TAVI HV interval were associated with subsequent HG-AVB and PPM implantation with odds ratios of 2.53 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–5.81; P = .04) and 1.10 (95% CI 1.03–1.17; P = .02; per 1-ms increase), respectively. In 10 studies, PPM was also implanted due to abnormal EPS findings in patients with equivocal PPM indications post-TAVI (typically new left bundle branch block or transient HG-AVB). Among them, the rate of long-term PPM dependency was 57%. Conclusion: Selective EPS testing may assist in the risk stratification of post-TAVI HG-AVB and in the guidance of PPM implantation, especially in patients with equivocal PPM indications post-TAVI.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate ischemic and bleeding outcomes of unselected cancer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background: The number of cancer patients undergoing PCI is increasing despite concerns regarding ischemic and bleeding risks. Methods: Between 2009 and 2017, consecutive patients undergoing PCI were prospectively included in the Bern PCI Registry. Cancer-specific data including type, date of initial diagnosis, and health status at index PCI were collected. We performed propensity score matching to adjust for baseline differences between patients with and without cancer. The primary ischemic endpoint was the device-oriented composite endpoint (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization) at 1 year, and the primary bleeding endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2 to 5 at 1 year. Results: Among 13,647 patients, 1,368 (10.0%) had an established diagnosis of cancer. The 3 leading cancer types were prostate (n = 294), gastrointestinal tract (n = 188), and hematopoietic (n = 177). At index PCI, 179 (13.1%) patients were receiving active cancer treatment. In matched analysis, there was no significant difference in device-oriented composite endpoint (11.5% vs. 10.2%; p = 0.251), whereas cardiac death and BARC 2 to 5 bleeding occurred more frequently among patients with cancer compared with those without cancer (6.8% vs. 4.5%; p = 0.010 and 8.0% vs. 6.0%; p = 0.026, respectively). Cancer diagnosis within 1 year before PCI emerged as an independent predictor for cardiac death and BARC 2 to 5 bleeding at 1 year. Conclusions: Cancer patients carry an increased risk of cardiac mortality that was not associated with stent-related ischemic events among patients undergoing PCI in routine clinical practice. Higher risk of bleeding in cancer patients undergoing PCI deserves particular attention. (CARDIOBASE Bern PCI Registry; NCT02241291)

A 54-year-old man developed ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction 1 week after percutaneous coronary intervention of the left anterior descending artery. Optical coherence tomography at the emergent percutaneous coronary intervention revealed an intramural hematoma extending from the in-stent dissection. We highlight that in-stent dissection, although generally considered a benign finding, can extend and cause intramural hematoma, resulting in coronary artery occlusion. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.)