Importance of Contrast Aortography With Lotus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Post Hoc Analysis From the RESPOND Post-Market Study

Objectives

The aim of this post hoc analysis from the RESPOND (Repositionable Lotus Valve System–Post-Market Evaluation of Real World Clinical Outcomes) post-market study was to assess the final implantation depth on the contrast aortogram after Lotus valve (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and to correlate with permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) and paravalvular leak (PVL).

2019 HRS expert consensus statement on evaluation,risk stratification,and management of arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy

Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM) is an arrhythmogenic disorder of the myocardium not secondary to ischemic, hypertensive, or valvular heart disease. ACM incorporates a broad spectrum of genetic, systemic, infectious, and inflammatory disorders. This designation includes, but is not limited to, arrhythmogenic right/left ventricular cardiomyopathy, cardiac amyloidosis, sarcoidosis, Chagas disease, and left ventricular noncompaction. The ACM phenotype overlaps with other cardiomyopathies, particularly dilated cardiomyopathy with arrhythmia presentation that may be associated with ventricular dilatation and/or impaired systolic function. This expert consensus statement provides the clinician with guidance on evaluation and management of ACM and includes clinically relevant information on genetics and disease mechanisms. PICO questions were utilized to evaluate contemporary evidence and provide clinical guidance related to exercise in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Recommendations were developed and approved by an expert writing group, after a systematic literature search with evidence tables, and discussion of their own clinical experience, to present the current knowledge in the field. Each recommendation is presented using the Class of Recommendation and Level of Evidence system formulated by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association and is accompanied by references and explanatory text to provide essential context. The ongoing recognition of the genetic basis of ACM provides the opportunity to examine the diverse triggers and potential common pathway for the development of disease and arrhythmia.     

Transcatheter Valve SELECTion in Patients With Right Bundle Branch Block and Impact on Pacemaker Implantations

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the impact of the ACURATE neo (NEO) (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts) versus SAPIEN 3 (S3) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) on permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) in patients with pre-existing right bundle branch block (RBBB) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.BackgroundPre-existing RBBB is the strongest patient-related predictor for PPI after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. No comparison of newer-generation transcatheter heart valves with regard to PPI in these patients exists.MethodsThis multicenter registry includes 4,305 patients; 296 (6.9%) had pre-existent RBBB and no pacemaker at baseline and formed the study population. The primary endpoint was new PPI at 30 days. The association of NEO versus S3 with PPI was assessed using binary logistic regression analyses and inverse probability treatment weighting in a propensity-matched population.ResultsThe 30-day PPI rate was 39.2%. The S3 and NEO were used in 66.9% and 33.1%, respectively. The NEO was associated with lower rates of PPI compared with the S3 (29.6% vs. 43.9%; p = 0.025; odds ratio [OR]: 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32 to 0.89; p = 0.018), after multivariable adjustment (OR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.86; p = 0.014), and in the inverse probability treatment weighting analysis (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.55; p < 0.001). There was no difference in device failure (8.2% vs. 6.6%; p = 0.792) or in-hospital course. In the propensity-matched population, PPI rate was also lower in the NEO versus S3 (23.1% vs. 44.6%; p = 0.016; OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.78; p = 0.010), with no difference in device failure (9.2% vs. 6.2%; p = 0.742).ConclusionsIn patients with RBBB, risk of PPI was significantly lower with the NEO compared with the S3, suggesting the possibility of a patient tailored transcatheter heart valve therapy.     

Left ventricular conduction delays induced by right ventricular apical pacing: effect of left ventricular dysfunction and bundle branch block

Background: RV apical pacing (RVP) may be deleterious, possibly by simulating LBBB, i.e., prolonging QRS duration (QRSd) and LV activation (LVAT). However, determinants of electrical delays are unknown.
Hypothesis: LV dysfunction (LVEF ≤ 40%, HF) and pre-existing conduction system abnormalities may modulate RVP's effects, compared to LBBB.
Methods: RVP-induced QRSd and LVAT were compared in normal LV to HF, with normal QRS (<120 ms), RBBB, or LBBB. LVAT was estimated by interval from QRS onset to basal inferolateral LV depolarization.
Results: During LBBB and RVP, LVAT/QRSd was ≥85%, i.e., LVAT indicated terminal LV depolarization. In normal LV, LVAT during intrinsic conduction (55 ± 18 ms) was delayed by RVP (129 ± 20 ms, n = 58, P < 0.001). RVP's effects were similar to LBBB (P = NS) and unaffected by baseline conduction disease. In HF overall, RVP-induced delays (QRSd 209 ± 27, LVAT 186 ± 26 ms, n = 102) were greater than RVP in normal LV (P < 0.001). When baseline conduction system disease was present, RVP's effects were exaggerated (RVP wide QRS [>120 ms]: QRSd 216 ± 27, LVAT 191 ± 20 ms, [n = 72] vs RVP normal QRS: QRSd 193 ± 24, LVAT 169 ± 24 ms, n = 31, P < 0.001). In patients with LBBB (n = 41), delays during intrinsic conduction (QRSd 163 ± 29, LVAT 137 ± 33 ms, n = 41) were enhanced by RVP (QRSd 218 ± 28, LVAT 191 ± 22 ms, P < 0.001). RVP's effects were similar in patients with LBBB and RBBB (P = NS).
Conclusion: RVP simulated LBBB in normal LV. In HF, RVP induced greater conduction delays than LBBB, enhanced by accompanying conduction disease. These variations may contribute to RVP's mixed clinical effects.