Open AccessRandomized comparison of balloon aortic valvuloplasty performed with or without rapid cardiac pacing: The pacing versus no pacing (PNP) study
Author(s) -
Dall'Ara Gianni,
Marzocchi Antonio,
Taglieri Nevio,
Moretti Carolina,
Rodinò Giulio,
Chiarabelli Matteo,
Bottoni Paolo,
Marrozzini Cinzia,
Sabattini Maria Rita,
BacchiReggiani MariaLetizia,
Rapezzi Claudio,
Saia Francesco
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of interventional cardiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.764
H-Index - 51
eISSN - 1540-8183
pISSN - 0896-4327
DOI - 10.1111/joic.12452
Subject(s) - medicine , aortic valvuloplasty , cardiogenic shock , cardiology , balloon , clinical endpoint , aortic valve replacement , myocardial infarction , anesthesia , aortic valve , randomized controlled trial , aortic valve stenosis , stenosis
Objectives To compare the effectiveness and safety of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) performed with or without rapid ventricular pacing (RP). Background BAV technique is poorly standardized. Methods One hundred consecutive patients were randomly assigned 1:1 between BAV performed with or without RP. Exclusion criteria were an immediate indication for surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement, presentation in cardiogenic shock or pulmonary edema refractory to medical stabilization. Results There were 51 patients in the BAV group performed with RP, 49 in the BAV group without RP (noRP). Procedural success (50% hemodynamic gradient reduction) was achieved in 37.3% and 55.1%, respectively ( P = 0.16). Fewer people in the noRP group complained of poor tolerance to the procedure (16% vs 41%). The primary efficacy endpoint, a 50% reduction in the mean echocardiographic trans‐aortic gradient, was met in 21/49 patients in the noRP group compared to 20/51 in the RP (42.9% vs 39.2%; P = 0.84). No significant difference between the groups was observed in the primary safety endpoint, a 30‐day composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, acute aortic regurgitation, and BARC bleeding ≥3 (8.2% noRP vs 13.7%; P = 0.53). The noRP group required fewer bailout temporary pacemakers ( P = 0.048) and had a lower incidence of moderate/severe renal function worsening (4.1% vs 17.6%; P = 0.052). Conclusions Rapid ventricular pacing did not influence BAV efficacy or safety and tolerance was slightly worse.