Open AccessIncidence of arrhythmias and impact of permanent pacemaker implantation in hospitalizations with transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Author(s) -
Doshi Rajkumar,
Decter Dean H.,
Meraj Perwaiz
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
clinical cardiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.263
H-Index - 72
eISSN - 1932-8737
pISSN - 0160-9289
DOI - 10.1002/clc.22943
Subject(s) - medicine , atrial fibrillation , atrioventricular block , incidence (geometry) , cardiology , permanent pacemaker , right bundle branch block , valve replacement , adverse effect , left bundle branch block , population , bundle branch block , surgery , heart failure , electrocardiography , physics , environmental health , stenosis , optics
Background This study sought to analyze in‐hospital outcomes associated with preexisting and newly implanted permanent pacemaker (PPM) in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). PPM implantation following the development of conduction abnormalities is a common adverse event following TAVR. Furthermore, PPM implantation rates are higher in TAVR hospitalizations compared with the surgical alternative, thus we have analyzed the predictors of pacing post‐TAVR. Hypothesis We hypothesize that incidence of arrhythmias are high post‐TAVR and have worse adverse outcomes after receiving PPM. Methods The study population was identified from the National Inpatient Sample database between 2012 and 2014. TAVR population was identified using ICD‐9‐CM procedure codes 35.05 and 35.06. Hospitalizations were divided into 3 group: (1) with preexisting PPM, (2) with newly implanted PPM, and (3) without any PPM. Results Overall, 0.8% of hospitalizations presented with preexisting PPM and 23.7% of hospitalizations received new PPM. The overall incidence of atrial fibrillation was 44.5%, left bundle branch block 8.9%, complete atrioventricular block 9.5%, and right bundle branch block 2.7%. In‐hospital mortality was higher in hospitalizations receiving PPM compared with those without (4.9% vs 4.0%; P = 0.05). Length of stay and cost were higher in the group receiving new PPM. Female sex, atrial fibrillation, left bundle branch block, and second‐degree and complete atrioventricular block were significant predictors for receiving PPM after TAVR. Conclusions A risk stratification for hospitalizations with conduction disorders is necessary to avoid longer hospital stays, added costs, and mortality. Further research is warranted to investigate additional predictors for PPM after TAVR.