Login | Users Online: 3425  
Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size   
Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact us
 


 
Table of Contents
CASE REPORT
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 170-171  

Implantation of leadless pacemaker for the development of new left bundle branch block and symptomatic pause following transcatheter aortic valve replacement


Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

Date of Submission24-Aug-2018
Date of Acceptance11-Sep-2019
Date of Web Publication14-Nov-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sneha Nandy
302, Lakefront Solitaire Powai, Mumbai - 400 076, Maharashtra, India

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/HEARTVIEWS.HEARTVIEWS_91_18

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Cardiac conduction disturbances such as left bundle branch block (LBBB) and atrioventricular blocks (AVB) occur frequently following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and may be associated with adverse clinical events. There is a lack of consensus regarding permanent pacemaker implantation in the case of occurrence of TAVR-related bundle branch blocks or combination of AVB and bundle blocks. Furthermore, there are no guidelines regarding the use of the leadless pacemaker in this setting. We present a patient who underwent successful implantation of a leadless pacemaker for a new LBBB post-TAVR.

Keywords: Bundle branch block, leadless pacemaker, transcatheter aortic valve replacement


How to cite this article:
Nandy S, Wan SH, Klarich K. Implantation of leadless pacemaker for the development of new left bundle branch block and symptomatic pause following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Heart Views 2019;20:170-1

How to cite this URL:
Nandy S, Wan SH, Klarich K. Implantation of leadless pacemaker for the development of new left bundle branch block and symptomatic pause following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Heart Views [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Dec 12];20:170-1. Available from: http://www.heartviews.org/text.asp?2019/20/4/170/271032




   Introduction Top


Cardiac conduction disturbances such as left bundle branch block (LBBB) and atrioventricular blocks (AVBs) occur frequently following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and may be associated with adverse clinical events. There are no evidence-based guidelines regarding the implantation of a leadless pacemaker following the development of a new LBBB post-TAVR.


   Case Presentation Top


A 71-year-old female with permanent atrial fibrillation and severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis underwent a TAVR procedure with a 26-mm Sapiens S3 valve. Postprocedure, her electrocardiographic (ECG) demonstrated a new LBBB with QRS duration of 172 ms. Four days postoperatively; she developed presyncope and had an 8 s pause on telemetry. Due to patient body habitus and Body Mass Index (BMI) of 54 kg/m2, as well as permanent atrial fibrillation precluding the need for an atrial lead, a leadless pacemaker (Medtronic Micra) was implanted transcutaneously. The patient felt well and was discharged in stable condition.


   Discussion Top


TAVR has become an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for inoperable or surgical high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.[1]

LBBB rates of 12%–22% have been reported after implantation of the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve.[2] AVB and the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) are complications commonly reported after surgical or percutaneous aortic valve replacement. The PPI rate after surgical aortic valve replacement is 5.8%, while that after TAVR ranges from 8% to 33.7% based on meta-analyses.[3],[4]

There is a lack of consensus regarding PPI in TAVR-related bundle branch blocks or combination AVB and bundle blocks, as was the case in our patient. Furthermore, there are no guidelines regarding the use of the leadless pacemaker in this setting.

The indication for PPI and its time of performance are frequently individualized according to the center and/or the operating physician's preference. The current European Society of Cardiology guidelines[5] on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy recommend PPI be performed before completing the observation period of 7 days in AVB after TAVR only if the escape rhythm is considered unstable. In view of our patient's symptomatic pause and ECG suggestive of complete heart block, she underwent implantation of the leadless pacemaker on the postoperative day.[4]

The patient factors that prompted us to consider a leadless pacemaker were: (a) Large patient body habitus with a BMI of 54 kg/m2 that made a conventional pacemaker unsuitable and (b) a history of permanent atrial fibrillation that precluded the need for an atrial lead. The Medtronic Micra was the leadless pacemaker implanted through transfemoral access. Postdevice insertion, the patient was hemodynamically stable [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Lateral view chest X-ray showing transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve shadow and leadless Micra pacemaker

Click here to view



   Conclusion Top


The leadless pacemaker may be a good option for patients not requiring atrial leads and having conduction abnormalities post-TAVR placement.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 2010;363:1597-607.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Auffret V, Puri R, Urena M, Chamandi C, Rodriguez-Gabella T, Philippon F, et al. Conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Current status and future perspectives. Circulation 2017;136:1049-69.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Nazif TM, Dizon JM, Hahn RT, Xu K, Babaliaros V, Douglas PS, et al. Predictors and clinical outcomes of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: The PARTNER (Placement of aoRtic traNscathetER valves) trial and registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015;8:60-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Möllmann H, Kim WK, Kempfert J, Walther T, Hamm C. Complications of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): How to avoid and treat them. Heart 2015;101:900-8.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G, Bordachar P, Boriani G, Breithardt OA, et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: The task force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European society of cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European heart rhythm association (EHRA). Eur Heart J 2013;34:2281-329.  Back to cited text no. 5
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Case Presentation
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed109    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded11    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal