Risk of Pacemaker Implantation After Aortic Root Replacement With and Without Valve Preservation

Abstract

BackgroundWe compared the outcomes of aortic root replacement by composite valve grafts (CVG) and valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) operations, with an emphasis on postoperative conduction block and the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPM). MethodsFrom 1997 to 2023, 1712 consecutive patients underwent ARR by VSRR (501 [29%]) or CVG (1211 [71%]) at a high-volume aortic center. ResultsPatients undergoing CVG were older (59 ± 14 vs 49 ± 14 years, P < .001), with more cardiovascular comorbidities. Compared with CVG, there were more women undergoing VSRR (17% vs. 13%, P = .042) and more patients with connective tissue disease (22% vs 7.3%, P < .001). Multivariable analysis found that the risk for PPM was higher after CVG compared with VSRR (6.5% vs 1.2%; odds ratio [OR], 2.83; 95% CI, 1.23-7.69; P = .024). Other variables associated with PPM include older age (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05; P = .006) preoperative renal impairment (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.24-5.6; P = .010), previous operation (OR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.29-5.62; P = .007), and bicuspid aortic valve (OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 2.13-6.33; P < .001). Among the CVG population, patients who are at increased risk are especially those with some degree of aortic stenosis (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.18-3.61; P = .011). Patients who required PPM had no additive risk for long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.47-2.17; P = .986); however, they were more likely to have reduced ejection fraction (29.3% vs 16%, P = .014). ConclusionsThe incidence of PPM after ARR is low, but rates were higher after CVG compared with VSRR.