
==== Front
Open Heart
Open Heart
openhrt
openhrt
Open Heart
2053-3624
BMJ Publishing Group BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR

39299736
10.1136/openhrt-2024-002867
openhrt-2024-002867
Original Research
Valvular Heart Disease
1506
Recovery rate from conduction disorders in patients with permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Yamamoto Maria 1u609iq4e@yahoo.co.jp

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4172-2603
Hiraoka Arudo 1bassbord1028@yahoo.co.jp

Yoshida Toshinobu 2tshnb128@gmail.com

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4492-665X
Kishimoto Satoru 1satkishimoto@yahoo.co.jp

Chikazawa Genta 1endochikazawa@yahoo.co.jp

Yoshitaka Hidenori 1archtaa@yahoo.co.jp

1 Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, The Sakakibara Heart Institute, Okayama, Japan
2 Department of Cardiology, The Sakakibara Heart Institute, Okayama, Japan
DrArudoHiraoka; bassbord1028@yahoo.co.jp
None declared.

2024
18 9 2024
11 2 e00286730 7 2024
28 8 2024
Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Abstract

Backgrounds

Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) is one of the greatest disadvantages of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). To seek the predictors and clinical impacts of PPMI and investigate the recovery rate from conduction disorders.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed data from 745 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI for severe aortic stenosis from November 2013 to July 2022. The ventricular pacing (VP) rate was recorded at 1 and 6 months after PPMI and the recovery from conduction disorders was defined as the VP rate <1%.

Results

Postoperative PPMI was performed in 7.1% (53/745) of patients. Balloon predilatation was significantly frequent in the PPMI (−) group (52.8% (28/53) vs 80.6% (558/692); p<0.001) and the oversizing ratio was significantly greater in the PPMI (+) group (11.8%±10.1% vs 9.1%±9.7%; p=0.035). Freedom from rehospitalisation due to heart failure rate was significantly higher in the PPMI (−) group (p=0.032). In patients with postoperative PPMI, recovery from conduction disorders was observed in 17.0% and 27.9% of patients at 1 and 6 months, respectively.

Conclusions

Recovery from conduction disorders occurred frequently. Avoidance of oversizing and extension of observation time may reduce the need for PPMI after TAVI.

Aortic Valve Stenosis
Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation
Pacemaker, Artificial
==== Body
pmcWHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

Conduction disorders are one of the most frequent complications of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) rate is higher compared with surgical aortic valve replacement and several predictors have been reported.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

The oversizing ratio was significantly greater in the PPMI (+) group. Freedom from rehospitalisation due to heart failure rate was significantly higher in the PPMI (−) group. However, in patients with PPMI after TAVI, recovery from conduction disorders was observed in 17.0% and 27.9% of patients at 1 and 6 months, respectively.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

Recovery from conduction disorders occurred frequently. To reduce unnecessary PPMI after TAVI, observation time should be extended for conduction disorders and oversizing should be avoided.

Introduction

Recently, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been accepted by the broad medical community and has become a less invasive routine procedure with extensive indications. However, despite the development of better devices with major refinements in technology, procedural techniques and biomedical engineering, postprocedural conduction disorders remain frequent and difficult to manage as reported in recent trials. Conduction disorders are one of the most frequent complications of TAVI. Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) is sometimes required in patients with a high-degree atrioventricular block (HAVB) or complete heart block (CHB).1 The incidence rate of PPMI was reported to be 10.8%–17% overall.13 The breakdown was 10%–12% in balloon-expandable devices and 15% in self-expandable devices.46 Since the PPMI rate is higher compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) (3.0%–11.8%), this complication is one of the greatest disadvantages of TAVI.7 Though several adverse effects of PPMI are known, the predictors and clinical impacts are still controversial. PPMI is generally considered 1–2 weeks after surgical AVR to exclude unnecessary PPMI. In TAVI cases, hospitalisation stay is short and PPMI tends to be decided at a relatively early phase after surgery. Actually, conduction disorders sometimes recover by temporary pacing after TAVI. Therefore, reported cases with PPMI after TAVI may include patients whose PPMI could have been avoided.

Based on these backgrounds, the aim of this study is to seek the predictive factors and clinical impacts of PPMI and to investigate the recovery rate from conduction disorders in patients with PPMI after TAVI.

Patients and methods

Study population

We retrospectively analysed data in consecutive patients (n=795) who underwent TAVI for severe aortic stenosis at the Sakakibara Heart Institute of Okayama, Japan, from November 2013 to July 2022. Of them, 50 patients with preoperative PPM were excluded. In the remaining 745 patients, the incidence and risk factors of postoperative PPMI were investigated. Baseline demographics, medical comorbidities, conduction abnormalities, echocardiographic parameters, prosthetic valve type and procedural data were collected via a standardised data extraction sheet.

Patients or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of our research.

Indication of pacemaker implantation and definition of pacemaker utilisation rate

Generally, TAVI was the first-line choice in aged patients >80 years and TAVI was sometimes selected for high-risk younger patients (<80 years) for surgical AVR. PPMI was planned in patients with lasting HAVB or CHB requiring backup of a transcutaneous pacemaker >48 hours after TAVI. The ventricular pacing (VP) rate was recorded at the 1-month and 6-month postoperative pacemaker follow-up after PPMI. The VP rate <1% was defined as the unused PPM and recovery from conduction disorders.

Statistical analysis

Continuous data are presented as mean±SD and were analysed using two-tailed t-tests or compared with a Mann-Whitney test for independent data, as appropriate. Categorical variables are given as a count and percentage of patients and were compared using the χ2 test. When any expected frequency was less than 1, or 20% of expected frequencies were less than or equal to 5, the Fisher’s exact test was used. Freedom from death and rehospitalisation due to heart failure after surgery was compared by the Kaplan-Meier model and the log-rank test. All data were analysed by using the Statistical Analysis Systems software JMP V.12.0 (SAS Institute).

Results

Patients’ characteristics and ECG data

Of the total 745 patients who underwent TAVI in our institute after excluding patients with preoperative PPM, postoperative PPMI was performed in 53 patients (7.1%). There was no significant difference in patients’ age between the groups (86.1±4.8 years vs 85.2±4.9 years; p=0.17). Other data on patients’ characteristics were similar (table 1). Table 2 shows ECG data. The percentage of atrial fibrillation was equivalent (13/53 (27.3%) vs 129/692 (18.6%); p=0.28). There was no significant difference in the percentage of complete right bundle branch block (CRBBB) (4/53 (7.6%) vs 38/692 (5.5%); p=0.53). There were no significant differences in heart rate, R-R, P-R, QRS duration and QT time between the two groups.

Table 1 Patient demographics

Variables	PPMI (+)(n=53)	PPMI (−) (n=692)	P value	
Age (years)	86.1±4.8	85.2±4.9	0.17	
Female	36 (67.9%)	462 (66.8%)	1.00	
BSA (m2)	1.39±0.19	1.41±0.17	0.55	
Hypertension	43 (81.1%)	567 (80.5%)	1.00	
Hyperlipidaemia	25 (47.2%)	307 (44.4%)	0.77	
Diabetes mellitus	21 (39.6%)	229 (33.1%)	0.37	
Chronic kidney disease	16 (30.2%)	157 (22.7%)	0.24	
COPD	5 (9.4%)	69 (10.0%)	1.00	
Cerebral disease	12 (22.6%)	171 (24.7%)	0.87	
NYHA class IV	4 (7.6%)	40 (5.8%)	0.55	
STS score (%)	9.5±5.4	9.7±8.1	0.36	
BSA, body surface area; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; NYHA, New York heart association; PPMIpermanent pacemaker implantationSTS, Society of Thoracic Surgery

Table 2 ECG data

Variables	PPMI (+)(n=53)	PPMI (−)(n=692)	P value	
Atrial fibrillation	13 (24.5%)	129 (1865%)	0.28	
Complete right bundle branch block	4 (7.6%)	38 (5.5%)	0.53	
Heart rate (per minute)	70±11	71±11	0.35	
R-R duration	0.86±0.19	0.86±0.13	0.68	
P-R duration	0.18±0.04	0.18±0.02	0.21	
QRS duration	0.10±0.02	0.10±0.02	0.21	
QT time	0.41±0.05	0.40±0.03	0.96	
PPMIpermanent pacemaker implantation

Preoperative echocardiographic and cardiac CT data

In echocardiographic parameters, there were no significant differences in preoperative cardiac function between patients with and without PPMI (left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF): 60.7%±11.3% vs 60.6%±12.2%; p=0.92, stroke volume index: 49.8±13.7 mL/m2 vs 48.4±13.6 mL/m2; p=0.48). The severity of aortic valve stenosis including pressure gradient, velocity and effective area was equivalent. There were no significant differences in CT data of the aortic annulus size (annulus diameter by area: 22.4±1.8 mm vs 22.6±1.7 mm; p=0.31) (table 3).

Table 3 Preoperative echocardiographic and CT data

Variables	PPMI (+)(n=53)	PPMI (−)(n=692)	P value	
Echocardiography				
LVEF (%)	60.7±11.3	60.6±12.2	0.92	
Stroke volume index (mL/m2)	49.8±13.7	48.4±13.6	0.48	
Peak PG (mm Hg)	83.0±21.5	86.9±28.6	0.53	
Mean PG (mm Hg)	46.1±13.1	49.0±17.3	0.32	
Max velocity (m/s)	4.5±0.6	4.6±0.8	0.56	
AVA (cm2)	0.68±0.15	0.66±0.18	0.39	
AR ≥moderate	17 (32.1%)	150 (21.7%)	0.09	
TRPG (mm Hg)	28.0±10.6	27.9±9.4	0.98	
CT				
Annulus diameter by area (mm)	22.4±1.8	22.6±1.7	0.31	
Annulus diameter by perimeter (mm)	22.9±1.9	22.8±1.7	0.75	
Annulus diameter by short/long axis diameter (mm)	22.6±1.8	22.7±1.7	0.76	
AVA, aortic valve area; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; PG, pressure gradient; PPMIpermanent pacemaker implantationTRPG, tricuspid regurgitation pressure gradient

Procedural data

There was no significant difference in the type of prosthetic valve (self-expandable type: 47.2% (25/53) vs 36.9% (225/692); p=0.14). Though the rate of balloon postdilatation was similar (34.0% (18/53) vs 28.9% (200/692); p=0.44), balloon predilatation was significantly frequent in the PPMI (−) group (52.8% (28/53) vs 80.6% (558/692); p<0.001). There was no significant difference in prosthetic valve size, but the oversizing ratio (the prosthesis size to annulus diameter calculated by area) was significantly greater in the PPMI (+) group (11.8%±10.1% vs 9.1%±9.7%; p=0.035) (table 4).

Table 4 Procedural data

Variables	PPMI (+)(n=53)	PPMI (−)(n=692)	P value	
Self-expandable type	25 (47.2%)	225 (36.9%)	0.14	
Trans-femoral approach	48 (90.6%)	611 (88.3%)	0.93	
After surgical aortic valve replacement	0 (0%)	31 (4.5%)	0.16	
Pre-BAV	28 (52.8%)	558 (80.6%)	<0.001	
Post-BAV	18 (34.0%)	200 (28.9%)	0.44	
Prosthetic valve size	25.2±2.1	24.7±2.4	0.11	
Oversizing ratio (%)	11.8±10.1	9.1±9.7	0.035	
Contrast usage (mL)	78.7±54.0	65.3±27.8	0.08	
Radiation time (min)	25.4±9.7	24.7±10.9	0.25	
Operative time (min)	82.7±31.7	85.8±43.6	0.95	
BAV, balloon aortic valvuloplasty

VP rate and follow-up data

Of the 53 patients who underwent PPMI after TAVI, PPM was not used in 17.0% of patients (9 patients with VP rate <1%) at 1 month after TAVI. The number of patients with a VP rate ≥99%, 80%–98%, 10%–79%, 1%–10%, <1% was 31, 7, 5 1 and 9, respectively. The VP rate was followed up at 6 months. PPM was not used (VP rate <1%) in an additional three patients whose VP rate was >90% at 1 month (figure 1). As a result, the rate of recovery from conduction disorders was 5.9% (44/745) and 5.5% (41/745) at 1 and 6 months after TAVI. Risk factors were compared between patients with and without recovery from conduction disorders (n=12 and 41). Though there were no significant differences in CRBBB, type of prosthesis, preballoon aortic valvuloplasty and oversizing ratio, there was no patient with CRBBB (0% (0/12) vs 9.8% (4/41); p=0.56), and the oversizing ratio was insignificantly lower (9.9%±8.1% vs 13.3%±8.9%; p=0.25) in the VP <1% group (table 5).

Figure 1 Change of ventricular pacing (VP) rate from 1 to 6 months after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Table 5 Comparison of risk factors between patients with and without VP <1%

Variables	VP <1% (+)(n=12)	VP <1% (−)(n=41)	P value	
Complete right bundle branch block	0 (0%)	4 (9.8%)	0.56	
Self-expandable type	4 (33.3%)	21 (51.2%)	0.34	
Pre-BAV	8 (66.7%)	20 (48.8%)	0.34	
Oversizing ratio (%)	9.9±8.1	13.3±8.9	0.25	
BAV, balloon aortic valvuloplasty

The overall 5-year survival and freedom from rehospitalisation due to heart failure rates were 58.1% and 73.7%, respectively (figure 2A,B). Though there was no significant difference in follow-up survival (p=0.39), freedom from rehospitalisation due to heart failure rate was significantly higher in the PPMI (−) group (p=0.032) (figure 2C,D). There was no significant difference in the rates of freedom from rehospitalisation between patients with and without recovery from conduction disorders (p=0.65) (figure 3).

Figure 2 The Kaplan-Meier curve of overall 5-year survival (A) and freedom from rehospitalisation due to heart failure (B). Comparison of follow-up survival (C) and freedom from rehospitalisation due to heart failure (D) between patients the PPMI (−) (red line) and PPMI (+) (blue line) groups. PPMI, permanent pacemaker implantation.

Figure 3 The Kaplan-Meier curve of freedom from rehospitalisation due to heart failure between patients with (red line) and without (blue line) recovery from conduction disorders.

Discussion

The major findings of this study are as follows: (1) postoperative PPMI was performed in 7.1% of patients, (2) preoperative echocardiographic and ECG data including CRBBB were not associated with PPMI, (3) the rates of unused balloon predilatation and oversizing ratio were significantly greater in patients with PPMI, (4) the rate of rehospitalisation due to heart failure was significantly higher in the PPMI (+) group and (5) in patients with postoperative PPMI, recovery from conduction disorders was observed in 17.0% and 27.9% of patients at 1 and 6 months, respectively. Significant predictors of recovery from conduction disorders were not detected and the rate of rehospitalisation due to heart failure was similar between patients with and without recovery from conduction disorders.

The specific complications of PPMI including pacemaker pocket haematomas and infections are known and the incidence is as high as 12%.8 Additionally, increased mortality and greater heart failure hospitalisation rates have been reported in patients with new PPM implantation after TAVI.912 PPMI after TAVI was associated with reduced LVEF and impaired LV unloading. The negative effect on LVEF recovery driven by TAVI draws many concerns about long-term impact of pacing in TAVI patients.1215 The postulated mechanism of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy is the electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony from right ventricular apical pacing resulting in less effective ventricular contractions and changes in coronary blood flow. Therefore, a preventive method of PPMI should be emphasised to improve long-term outcomes of TAVI. Several risk factors of PPMI have been reported. In a recent systematic review, Ullah et al reported that male patients and those with baseline conduction abnormalities (Mobitz type 1 block, bifascicular block, left anterior hemiblock and right bundle branch block), and those receiving mechanical or self-expanding larger-sized prostheses were at an increased risk of PPMI.1618 In the present study, only procedural factors (non-use of balloon predilatation and oversizing of prosthesis) were detected as related factors of PPMI. Balloon predilatation may result in a more accurate positioning of the prosthetic valve. Nevertheless, the selection of an oversized prosthesis should be avoided to prevent PPMI. On the other hand, electrophysiological testing is recommended in the latest European Society of Cardiology guidelines to identify left bundle branch block patients after TAVI. While infrahisian conduction delay is generally defined by a His-ventricular (HV) interval of >55 ms, a cut-off of ≥70 ms to trigger PPMI has been proposed. However, the optimal cut-off value of HV interval is still undetermined and further studies will be required.19 Since several risk factors have been reported in previous papers, different strategy is selected for high-risk patients in our institute. For example, balloon expanding valve, higher level implantation and underfilling tend to be selected for high-risk patients to avoid PPMI. The different strategy of procedure may reduce the risk of PPMI in high-risk patients.

On the other hand, the present study suggests a new aspect of PPMI after TAVI from different points of view. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to investigate the VP ratio after PPMI following TAVI. In this cohort, new PPMI was performed in 7.1% of patients for conduction disorders after TAVI. The majority of our patients were considered to be at intermediate surgical risk by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons model.20 However, PPM was actually used in 5.9% and 5.5% of patients at 1 month and 6 months after TAVI. PPMI was planned within 48 hours after TAVI with an intended short hospital stay. These results show the possibility of reducing the PPMI rate after TAVI. Considering there was no significant difference in the rates of freedom from rehospitalisation between patients with and without recovery from conduction disorders, reduction of PPMI can lead to better long-term outcomes. Though significant predictors of recovery from conduction disorders were not detected, there was no patient with CRBBB and the oversizing ratio was insignificantly lower in the conduction disorders recovery group. To reduce unnecessary PPMI after TAVI, observation time should be extended for conduction disorders in patients without CRBBB prosthesis and oversizing should be avoided. However, a temporary modality of pacing may increase the risk of infection. Therefore, further study is needed to seek more accurate indicators of required PPMI to prevent unnecessary PPMI after TAVI.

Study limitations

This study had several limitations. First, the study was a retrospective analysis. Therefore, it is difficult to standardise the indication of PPMI. Second, it is unknown whether it is appropriate to define recovery from conduction disorders as the VP rate <1% at 6 months. Additionally, VP less than 1% may also not be benign. However, we cannot get accurate data for VP less than 1%, therefore, VP <1% was used as an endpoint. Finally, the sample size was relatively small to detect the risk of PPMI after TAVI and identify predictors of recovery from conduction disorders. Additionally, several factors (LVOT calcium/short membranous septum) were not assessed in this study.

Conclusions

Postoperative PPMI was performed in 7.1% of patients and the rate of rehospitalisation due to heart failure was significantly higher in the PPMI (+) group. However, recovery from conduction disorders was frequently observed at 1 and 6 months. Avoidance of oversizing and extension of observation time for conduction disorders may reduce unnecessary PPMI after TAVI.

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request.

Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Patient consent for publication: Consent obtained directly from patient(s).

Ethics approval: This study involves human participants and was approved by the ethics committee of the Sakakibara Heart Institute of Okayama (Approval No: R202208-04, Date: 25 August 2022). Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
==== Refs
References

1 Khatri PJ Webb JG Rodés-Cabau J et al Adverse effects associated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a meta-analysis of contemporary studies Ann Intern Med 2013 158 35 46 10.7326/0003-4819-158-1-201301010-00007 23277899
2 Carroll JD Mack MJ Vemulapalli S et al STS-ACC TVT Registry of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement J Am Coll Cardiol 2020 76 2492 516 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.09.595 33213729
3 Siontis GCM Jüni P Pilgrim T et al Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Undergoing TAVR J Am Coll Cardiol 2014 64 129 40 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.04.033 25011716
4 De Torres-Alba F Kaleschke G Diller GP et al Changes in the Pacemaker Rate After Transition From Edwards SAPIEN XT to SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: The Critical Role of Valve Implantation Height JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016 9 805 13 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.12.023 27017367
5 Barbanti M Increased Pacemaker Implantation Rate After New-Generation Balloon-Expandable SAPIEN 3 Valve: Who Was to Blame, the Valve or the Doctor? JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016 9 814 6 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.02.018 27017371
6 Popma JJ Reardon MJ Khabbaz K et al Early Clinical Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Using a Novel Self-Expanding Bioprosthesis in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Who Are Suboptimal for Surgery: Results of the Evolut R U.S. Study JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017 10 268 75 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.08.050 28183466
7 Matthews IG Fazal IA Bates MGD et al In patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, what factors predict the requirement for permanent pacemaker implantation? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2011 12 475 9 10.1510/icvts.2010.254607 21138915
8 Udo EO Zuithoff NPA van Hemel NM et al Incidence and predictors of short- and long-term complications in pacemaker therapy: the FOLLOWPACE study Heart Rhythm 2012 9 728 35 10.1016/j.hrthm.2011.12.014 22182495
9 Fadahunsi OO Olowoyeye A Ukaigwe A et al Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 2016 9 2189 99 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.07.026 27832844
10 Faroux L Chen S Muntané-Carol G et al Clinical impact of conduction disturbances in transcatheter aortic valve replacement recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis Eur Heart J 2020 41 2771 81 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz924 31899484
11 Jørgensen TH De Backer O Gerds TA et al Mortality and Heart Failure Hospitalization in Patients With Conduction Abnormalities After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2019 12 52 61 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.10.053 30621978
12 Dizon JM Nazif TM Hess PL et al Chronic pacing and adverse outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation Heart 2015 101 1665 71 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-307666 26261157
13 Beurskens NEG Tjong FVY de Bruin-Bon RHA et al Impact of Leadless Pacemaker Therapy on Cardiac and Atrioventricular Valve Function Through 12 Months of Follow-Up Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2019 12 e007124 10.1161/CIRCEP.118.007124 31060371
14 Biner S Michowitz Y Leshem-Rubinow E et al Hemodynamic impact and outcome of permanent pacemaker implantation following transcatheter aortic valve implantation Am J Cardiol 2014 113 132 7 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.09.030 24210334
15 Carrabba N Valenti R Migliorini A et al Impact on Left Ventricular Function and Remodeling and on 1-Year Outcome in Patients With Left Bundle Branch Block After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Am J Cardiol 2015 116 125 31 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.03.054 25937352
16 Kiani S Kamioka N Black GB et al Development of a Risk Score to Predict New Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2019 12 2133 42 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.07.015 31699374
17 Mack MJ Leon MB Thourani VH et al Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients at Five Years N Engl J Med 2023 389 1949 60 10.1056/NEJMoa2307447 37874020
18 Ullah W Zahid S Zaidi SR et al Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ‐ A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis JAHA 2021 10 e020906 10.1161/JAHA.121.020906 34259045
19 Serban T Knecht S du Lavallaz J du F et al Ventricular pacing burden in patients with left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve replacement therapy J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2023 34 1464 8 10.1111/jce.15920 37146212
20 Kumar A Sato K Narayanswami J et al Current Society of Thoracic Surgeons Model Reclassifies Mortality Risk in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2018 11 e006664 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.118.006664 30354591
