Usefulness of parahisian pacing for risk prediction of pacemaker implantation after TAVI

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Conduction disturbances determining pacemaker implantation are a significant concern in patients undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI), a procedure that is nowadays spreading even in the low-risk population. OBJECTIVE The aim of the study was to evaluate the role of the parahisian pacing, a method to directly identify the conduction system anatomical variability, in predicting the iatrogenic damage risk conditioning pacemaker implantation after TAVI. Methods Between October 2021 and November 2022 we prospectively collected clinical features, ECG, procedural and imaging data (cardiac CT and echocardiography) of every patient who underwent electrophysiological study for pre-existing or worsening conduction disorders within 48 hours after TAVI procedures in our centre. After having recorded the HV interval, parahisian stimulation at decreasing energy output was performed (CL 600 ms, 25V to 0.5V x 2 ms) with definition of the loss of capture pattern related to the three anatomical variations of His bundle described by Kawashima (1). Fisher’s exact test was used for statistical analysis; p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Out of 110 TAVI performed, a total of 31 patients with conduction disorders have been studied. Patients who developed permanent 3rd degree AV block after the procedure were excluded. Mean age was 82.6±4.4 years; 21 patients (67.7%) were males. 11 patients (35.5%) had a pre-existing conduction disorder worsened after TAVI, 13 patients (41.9%) developed newly-onset LBBB; 8 (25.8%) also developed 1st degree AV block. The total number of patients who underwent PM implantation was 16 (51.6%). The anatomical variables (membranous septum <3mm and/or septal cusps calcifications) and type of valve implanted were not significantly associated with PM implantation (p = NS). An HV interval <70 ms was registered in 20 (64.5%) patients (Fig. 1); 7 of them underwent PM implantation as they developed paroxysmal 3rd degree AV block. These 7 patients all had type 2 or type 3 pattern during parahisian stimulation. None of the patients undergoing PM implantation presented a type 1 pattern during parahisian stimulation. A significant protective value (p = 0.02) for PM implantation in patients with type 1 pattern was observed (Fig. 2). Conclusions Parahisian stimulation can be a useful tool to define the conduction system anatomical variability. It can also be helpful to predict the conduction system damage risk during TAVI, conditioning PM implantation. Our data need to be confirmed in a larger population.