CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

经导管主动脉瓣置换

Abstract

Recommended Article

Infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a nationwide study Thrombotic Versus Bleeding Risk After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: JACC Review Topic of the Week Predictors and Clinical Outcomes of Next-Day Discharge After Minimalist Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Single Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Following TAVR: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Multivalvular Heart Disease Leaflet immobility and thrombosis in transcatheter aortic valve replacement Frailty in Older Adults Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement: The FRAILTY-AVR Study 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis: The Task Force for the Management of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Endorsed by: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)

Clinical TrialVolume 12, Issue 24, December 2019

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Left Ventricular Rapid Pacing Via the Valve Delivery Guidewire in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Benjamin Faurie, Géraud Souteyrand, the EASY TAVI Investigators. Keywords: left ventricular pacing; left ventricular stimulation; transcatheter aortic valve implantation; transcatheter aortic valve replacement

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES -  This study investigated whether left ventricular (LV) stimulation via a guidewire-reduced procedure duration while maintaining efficacy and safety compared with standard right ventricular (RV) stimulation.

 

BACKGROUND -  Rapid ventricular pacing is necessary to ensure cardiac standstill during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

 

METHODS -  This is a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, superiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR with a SAPIEN valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) were allocated to LV or RV stimulation. The primary endpoint was procedure duration. Secondary endpoints included efficacy, safety, and cost at 30 days.

 

RESULTS -  Between May 2017 and May 2018, 307 patients were randomized, but 4 were excluded because they did not receive the intended treatment: 303 patients were analyzed in the LV (n = 151) or RV (n = 152) stimulation groups. Mean procedure duration was significantly shorter in the LV stimulation group (48.4 ± 16.9 min vs. 55.6 ± 26.9 min; p = 0.0013), with a difference of 0.12 (95% confidence interval: 0.20 to 0.05) in the log-transformed procedure duration (p = 0.0012). Effective stimulation was similar in the LV and RV stimulation groups: 124 (84.9%) versus 128 (87.1%) (p = 0.60). Safety of stimulation was also similar in the LV and RV stimulation groups: procedural success occurred in 151 (100%) versus 151 (99.3%) patients (p = 0.99); 30-day MACE-TAVR (major adverse cardiovascular event-transcatheter aortic valve replacement) occurred in 21 (13.9%) versus 26 (17.1%) patients (p = 0.44); fluoroscopy time (min) was lower in the LV stimulation group (13.48 ± 5.98 vs. 14.60 ± 5.59; p = 0.02), as was cost (18,807 ± 1,318 vs. 19,437 ± 2,318; p = 0.001).

 

CONCLUSIONS - Compared with RV stimulation, LV stimulation during TAVR was associated with significantly reduced procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and cost, with similar efficacy and safety. (Direct Left Ventricular Rapid Pacing Via the Valve Delivery Guide-wire in TAVR [EASY TAVI]; NCT02781896)