Experts Reach Consensus on Post TAVR Pacemaker Indication

This new consensus published this week in J Am Coll Cardiol has provided us with an algorithm to manage conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. This consensus is intended to reduce potential deaths caused by conduction disturbances and, at the same time, reduce unnecessary definite pacemaker implantation.

¿Fin de la discusión sobre el impacto del marcapaso post TAVI?

This document is a big step ahead in providing guidelines for these patients, who have been treated arbitrarily, with disparity between randomized studies and the daily practice.

The document was drafted by a multidisciplinary group of interventional cardiologists, electrophysiologists and surgeons.

It first classifies potential conduction disturbances into 5 groups:

  • Group 1:With no new developments in EKG in patients with no right bundle branch block prior procedure.
  • Group 2: With no new developments in ECG in patients with right bundle branch block prior procedure.
  • Group 3: New developments in ECG in patients with prior right bundle branch block, left bundle branch block, intraventricular conduction disorders with QRS ≥ 120 mseg, or first degree atrio-ventricular block.
  • Group 4: New left bundle branch block.
  • Group 5: Complete heart block during procedure.

  • Read also: ESC 2019 | PARAGON-HF: Sacubitril/Valsartan Somewhat Disappointing, though a Few Would Benefit.


    Intra-procedural recommendations include continued monitoring, vein access with temporary pacemaker, no predilation if possible, considering the type of valve with the lowest risk of conduction disturbances and minimizing implantation depth.

    For group 1, temporary pacemaker could be removed immediately after procedure and 24-hour monitoring should suffice. If there are no new developments at ECG after 24 hrs., patients can be discharged.

    Group 2 should keep the temporary pacemaker for at least 24 hrs., and patients can be discharged after additional 24-hour monitoring.

    For high degree blocks and complete blocks, a definite pacemaker is required, but any new development in EKG after 2-day monitoring reclassifies patient in group 3.


    Read also: ESC 2019 | THEMIS-PCI: Unlike in the Main Study, Here Ticagrelor Is Indeed Effective.


    Temporary pacemakers should be kept for 24 hrs. in group 3; if ECG shows baseline values or shows no new developments after 24-hr continued monitoring, patients can be discharged. Should there be any developments, temporary pacemaker is to be kept additional 24 hrs. Bear in mind these patients, whose ECG continues to evolve the first 48 hrs., are at high risk of complete block, and therefore require aggressive management.

    In groups 4 and 5, temporary pacemaker should be kept 24 hrs. followed by additional 24 hrs. of continued monitoring should the block be resolved.

    A new left bundle branch block with very wide QRS or with further developments to the new left bundle branch block determines these patients are at high risk of complete heart block, and therefore require aggressive management.

    Aggressive management vary from expert to expert, from discharge with ambulatory monitoring to prophylactic implantation of definite pacemaker. An intermediate algorithm could guide the need of definite pacemaker with an electrophysiology study.


    Read also: ESC 2019 | THEMIS: Ticagrelor in Diabetics with Stable Coronary Artery Disease.


    Many experts consider it is hard to set general guidelines when there are so many variables involved, such as patient anatomy, operator experience and kind of valve. However, this document is all we have, for now.

    Original Title: Management of conduction disturbances associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement: JACC scientific expert panel.

    Reference: Rodés-Cabau J et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:1086-1106.


    Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

    Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

    We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.

    More articles by this author

    TCT 2024 | TRISCEND II

    This randomized study included 400 patients; 267 were treated with EVOQUE valve and 133 with optimal medical treatment (OMT). After one-year follow-up, there were no...

    TCT 2024 – ACCESS-TAVI: Comparing Percutaneous Access Closure Strategies After TAVI

    Vascular access complications following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remain common. However, few studies compare vascular access closure methods.  Based on the CHOICE-CLOSURE and MASH...

    TAVR in Young Low-Risk Patients

    Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has established itself as an effective strategy for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis across different risk groups. While previous...

    TAVR and Atrial Fibrillation: What Anticoagulants Should We Use?

    The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in TAVR patients ranges from 15 to 30%, depending on series. This arrhythmia has been associated to higher...

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here

    Related Articles

    SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

    Recent Articles

    TCT 2024 | FAVOR III EUROPA

    The study FAVOR III EUROPA, a randomized trial, included 2,000 patients with chronic coronary syndrome, or stabilized acute coronary syndrome, and intermediate lesions. 1,008...

    TCT 2024 | TRISCEND II

    This randomized study included 400 patients; 267 were treated with EVOQUE valve and 133 with optimal medical treatment (OMT). After one-year follow-up, there were no...

    TCT 2024 – ACCESS-TAVI: Comparing Percutaneous Access Closure Strategies After TAVI

    Vascular access complications following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remain common. However, few studies compare vascular access closure methods.  Based on the CHOICE-CLOSURE and MASH...