We have located links that may give you full text access.
Incidence and predictors of new-onset atrioventricular block requiring pacemaker implantation after sutureless aortic valve replacement.
Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery 2016 December
OBJECTIVES: In high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a sutureless Perceval prosthesis (SU-AVR) can be performed instead of conventional AVR or transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Little data are available regarding postoperative conduction disorders after SU-AVR. We aimed to determine the incidence and predictors of new-onset complete atrioventricular block (NO-AVB) requiring permanent cardiac stimulation following SU-AVR.
METHODS: We studied consecutive patients who underwent SU-AVR between 2013 and 2015. Early patients underwent partial aortic decalcification and subannular valve implantation (standard technique), while later patients underwent complete/symmetrical decalcification and intra-annular valve deployment (modified technique). Predictive baseline and procedural variables and electrocardiographic parameters were identified using a logistic regression model.
RESULTS: We included 140 patients (mean age, 78 ± 6.5 years; mean Log EuroSCORE II, 8.9 ± 10%; 28.6% concomitant myocardial revascularization). The most common postoperative conduction disturbances were LBBB (25%), NO-AVB (12.1%) and first-degree atrioventricular block (AVB) (7.9%). The incidence of NO-AVB was 61% lower with the modified versus the standard technique (P= 0.04). NO-AVB predominantly appeared within 24 h post-surgery, occurring >24 h post-surgery in only 2 patients (both with baseline conduction defects). Independent predictors of NO-AVB included baseline left QRS axis deviation (LaQD; P= 0.03), first-degree AVB (P< 0.01) and standard surgical technique (P= 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: NO-AVB is a frequent complication following SU-AVR, and its incidence strongly depends on the surgical technique. Baseline first-degree AVB and LaQD independently predict NO-AVB and should be considered when deciding the duration of postoperative electrocardiographic monitoring.
METHODS: We studied consecutive patients who underwent SU-AVR between 2013 and 2015. Early patients underwent partial aortic decalcification and subannular valve implantation (standard technique), while later patients underwent complete/symmetrical decalcification and intra-annular valve deployment (modified technique). Predictive baseline and procedural variables and electrocardiographic parameters were identified using a logistic regression model.
RESULTS: We included 140 patients (mean age, 78 ± 6.5 years; mean Log EuroSCORE II, 8.9 ± 10%; 28.6% concomitant myocardial revascularization). The most common postoperative conduction disturbances were LBBB (25%), NO-AVB (12.1%) and first-degree atrioventricular block (AVB) (7.9%). The incidence of NO-AVB was 61% lower with the modified versus the standard technique (P= 0.04). NO-AVB predominantly appeared within 24 h post-surgery, occurring >24 h post-surgery in only 2 patients (both with baseline conduction defects). Independent predictors of NO-AVB included baseline left QRS axis deviation (LaQD; P= 0.03), first-degree AVB (P< 0.01) and standard surgical technique (P= 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: NO-AVB is a frequent complication following SU-AVR, and its incidence strongly depends on the surgical technique. Baseline first-degree AVB and LaQD independently predict NO-AVB and should be considered when deciding the duration of postoperative electrocardiographic monitoring.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app