Permanent pacemaker post-valve surgery: Do valve type and position matter? A propensity score matching study

Abstract

This study evaluates whether aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) with biological versus mechanical prostheses is independent risk factors for permanent pacemaker (PPM) post-cardiac surgery, alongside traditionally accepted determinants. This study focused on single-centre retrospective analysis of 10 years of activity. Case-control 1-to-9 matching was performed for 7 pre-operative and 2 intraoperative confounding factors. After matching, 617 patients were included for analysis: AVR (79.4% n=490) and MVR (20.6% n=127). PPM was implanted in 3.7% (n=18) and 3.1% (n=4), P=0.8, respectively. A further analysis for PPM rate in biological versus mechanical prostheses did not provide any significant result (P=0.6 AVR and P=0.8 MVR). Post-operative complications in AVR and MVR groups were as follows: Reopening (4.5% vs. 6.3%, P=0.4), myocardial infarction (0.8% vs. 3.2%, P=0.04), pulmonary (32.9% vs. 38.6%, P=0.3), neurological (9.2% vs. 11.8%, P=0.4), renal (9.8% vs. 7.9%, P=0.5), wound (1.4% vs. 2.4%, P=0.5), infective (5.5% vs. 8.7%, P=0.2), and multiple organ failure (4.9% vs. 5.5%, P=0.6). The length of intensive care unit (hours) and hospital stay (days) was 71±163.8 versus 106.5±243.7 (P=0.5) and 14.7±14.7 versus 18.9±20.8 (P=0.01). In-hospital mortality resulted in 4.1% for AVR and 3.9% for MVR, P=0.9. Valve position and valve type do not affect the likelihood of requiring permanent pacing in patients undergoing isolated aortic and MVR. A significant proportion of patients undergoing cardiac surgery develop arrhythmias and conduction disturbances postoperatively, often requiring the implantation of a PPM. Determining factors associated with an increase likelihood of permanent pacing would allow the optimization of per- and intra-operative care, with the aim of reducing the incidence of patients requiring post-operative PPM insertion.