The impact of cusp overlap on permanent pacemaker requirement following self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
The impact of cusp overlap on permanent pacemaker requirement following self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
- 2023
Available in print through MWHC library: 2002 - present
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The cusp overlap technique has standardized implantation for self-expanding valves with the goal of achieving more consistent implantation depths and lowering permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation rates. We retrospectively compared short-term outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding valve implanted using the cusp overlap technique vs. the traditional coplanar technique in a large tertiary referral center. CONCLUSIONS: The cusp overlap technique may not yield a reduction in PPM rates when compared with the coplanar technique. Other confounders should be explored to further minimize in-hospital PPM rates. Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study among PPM-naive patients who underwent TAVR using the CoreValve Evolut PRO/PRO+. We compared in-hospital PPM rates in patients who underwent TAVR using the cusp overlap technique vs. the coplanar technique. Additional outcomes included in-hospital all-cause mortality, stroke, major vascular complications, annular rupture, and >mild paravalvular leak. Furthermore, we compared outcomes over time to see whether there was evidence of a learning curve. RESULTS: Of the 528 patients included, 270 underwent TAVR using the coplanar technique and 258 underwent TAVR using the cusp overlap technique. The rate of new PPM implantation did not differ between cohorts (17.0 % vs. 16.7 %; p = 0.910). Additionally, rates of in-hospital all-cause mortality (0.0 % vs. 0.4 %; p = 0.328), stroke (3.7 % vs. 1.6 %; p = 0.124), major vascular complications (0.7 % vs. 1.2 %; p = 0.617), annular rupture (0.4 % vs. 0.0 %; p = 0.328) and >mild paravalvular leak (0.0 % vs. 0.4 %; p = 0.444) were similar. Our secondary analysis did not identify any evidence of a learning curve.
English
1878-0938
10.1016/j.carrev.2023.07.018 [doi] S1553-8389(23)00742-X [pii]
IN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXED
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
Journal Article
Available in print through MWHC library: 2002 - present
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The cusp overlap technique has standardized implantation for self-expanding valves with the goal of achieving more consistent implantation depths and lowering permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation rates. We retrospectively compared short-term outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding valve implanted using the cusp overlap technique vs. the traditional coplanar technique in a large tertiary referral center. CONCLUSIONS: The cusp overlap technique may not yield a reduction in PPM rates when compared with the coplanar technique. Other confounders should be explored to further minimize in-hospital PPM rates. Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study among PPM-naive patients who underwent TAVR using the CoreValve Evolut PRO/PRO+. We compared in-hospital PPM rates in patients who underwent TAVR using the cusp overlap technique vs. the coplanar technique. Additional outcomes included in-hospital all-cause mortality, stroke, major vascular complications, annular rupture, and >mild paravalvular leak. Furthermore, we compared outcomes over time to see whether there was evidence of a learning curve. RESULTS: Of the 528 patients included, 270 underwent TAVR using the coplanar technique and 258 underwent TAVR using the cusp overlap technique. The rate of new PPM implantation did not differ between cohorts (17.0 % vs. 16.7 %; p = 0.910). Additionally, rates of in-hospital all-cause mortality (0.0 % vs. 0.4 %; p = 0.328), stroke (3.7 % vs. 1.6 %; p = 0.124), major vascular complications (0.7 % vs. 1.2 %; p = 0.617), annular rupture (0.4 % vs. 0.0 %; p = 0.328) and >mild paravalvular leak (0.0 % vs. 0.4 %; p = 0.444) were similar. Our secondary analysis did not identify any evidence of a learning curve.
English
1878-0938
10.1016/j.carrev.2023.07.018 [doi] S1553-8389(23)00742-X [pii]
IN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXED
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
Journal Article