High-degree atrioventricular block after valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: incidence and predictors

Abstract

Abstract Background High-degree atrioventricular (AV) block and permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation represent major complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Data on the incidence of AV block for patients undergoing valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVI are scarce. We examined the incidence and predictors of periinterventional AV conduction disturbances in a cohort of subjects undergoing ViV TAVI compared to subjects undergoing TAVI of native aortic valves. Methods In 50 consecutive patients who underwent ViV TAVI, clinical characteristics, incidence and predictors for AV conduction disturbances as well as intrahospital outcome were assessed. Applying a matched pair approach for age, gender, type and size of transcatheter valve, these subjects were compared to 50 patients undergoing TAVI of native tricuspid aortic valves. Results Mean age in both groups was 80±6 years and 50% of subjects were male. In the ViV group, 22 patients (44%) had a stented bioprosthesis, 10 patients (20%) a stentless bioprosthesis and 18 patients (36%) a previous TAVI prosthesis (balloon-expandable: n=15, self-expandable n=3). The majority of subjects (92% in each group) were treated using balloon-expandable valves (ViV group: Sapien XT, n=20 or Sapien 3, n=26, control group: Sapien XT, n=19 or Sapien 3, n=27). Periinterventional, non-reversible 3rd degree AV-block occurred in 6 patients within each group (12%), and all of the affected patients underwent PPM implantation. Among the 32 patients who underwent ViV-TAVI of a surgically placed bioprosthesis, only 2 (6%) developed a high-degree AV block (1/22 with a stented bioprosthesis and 1/10 with a stentless bioprosthesis). In contrast, high-degree AV block occurred in 4/18 patients (22%) who underwent ViV TAVI of a prior TAVI prosthesis. There was a significant difference in the occurrence of total high-degree AV blocks requiring postinterventional PPM implantation (p=0.033) between subjects who received TAVI of stented bioprostheses and those who received re-TAVI. In logistic regression analysis, pre-existing RBBB represented a significant predictor for periinterventional 3rd degree AV block across the whole cohort (p=0.001, Exp(B)=10.667), both in ViV subjects (p=0.016, Exp(B)=12.0) and in the control group (p=0.018, Exp(B)=10.0). Conclusion Periinterventional AV block occurs infrequently in subjects undergoing ViV TAVI for treatment of degenerated surgical bioprostheses. However, patients undergoing ViV TAVI for degenerated transcatheter prostheses as well as subjects with pre-existing RBBB are at substantial risk for the occurence of AV block and require close peri-interventional monitoring. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.