Next Article in Journal
Right Ventricle in Arterial Hypertension: Did We Forget Something?
Next Article in Special Issue
Device Selection for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Previous Article in Journal
Clinical Implication of Serum Adiponectin Levels in Adult Patients with Atopic Dermatitis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evolving Devices and Material in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: What to Use and for Whom
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 11
Issue 21
10.3390/jcm11216256
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Unmet Needs in TAVR: Conduction Disturbances and Management of Coronary Artery Disease

by
Vincent Auffret
1,*,
Carine Ridard
1,2,
Nadia Salerno
3 and
Sabato Sorrentino
3
1
CHU Rennes Service de Cardiologie, Université de Rennes 1, Inserm LTSI U1099, 35000 Rennes, France
2
Vivalto Santé, Centre Hospitalier Privé St-Grégoire, 35760 St-Grégoire, France
3
Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Division of Cardiology, Magna Graecia University, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(21), 6256; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11216256
Submission received: 27 September 2022 / Revised: 14 October 2022 / Accepted: 20 October 2022 / Published: 24 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Aortic Valve Replacement: Ongoing Issues and Challenges)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Over the past two decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) swiftly evolved from a disrupting technology towards mainstream therapy in the field of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. A series of randomized evaluations established its role in treating severe aortic stenosis patients across all surgical risk categories, paving the way for an extension of its indications to younger low-risk patients with a longer life expectancy. Therefore, managing comorbidities and limiting procedural complications, which may affect long-term outcomes, is of paramount importance. Among those, new-onset conduction disturbances and concomitant coronary artery disease remain two of the most debated issues. In the present review, we will discuss the incidence, prognostic impact, and unmet needs of patients with post-TAVR new-onset conduction disturbances and the ongoing challenges posed by the management of concomitant coronary artery disease.

1. Introduction

Since its introduction in clinical practice in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the gold standard for the treatment of patients at high surgical risk and is steadily becoming a valuable option for patients deemed at intermediate as well as low operative risk [1].
For instance, the longer life expectancy estimated in patients with a lower operative risk, further highlights the importance of limiting procedural complications, such as stroke, myocardial infarction, bleedings, vascular complications, and conduction or rhythmic disturbance, and proposes new challenges for patients’ management [2,3,4,5].
Among those, conduction disturbance requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) remain a matter of debate. Accordingly, this review article will address these topics reporting incidence and prognostic impact as well as the unmet needs of patients with conduction disturbances after TAVR and the challenges in the management of patients with concomitant CAD undergoing TAVR.

2. Conduction Disturbances

Conduction disturbances, i.e., high-degree atrioventricular block (HAVB) requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) and new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB), represent the most common complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Thus, we will briefly review the current knowledge regarding the incidence and clinical impact of these conduction disturbances and reflect upon the challenges posed by these complications going forward in the TAVR setting. An extensive discussion of the mechanisms underlying these conduction disturbances, their natural history, predictors, and management is beyond the scope of the present review and can be found elsewhere [6,7,8,9,10].

3. New-Onset Persistent Left Bundle Branch Block

3.1. Incidence

With newer-generation devices, rates of 6% to 77% have been reported [6,7]. The incidence of new-onset LBBB with the SAPIEN 3 prosthesis ranges from 6% to 29% [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. The prospective MARE study reported the lowest rate with this iteration of the balloon-expandable device at 6.0% while the randomized PARTNER 3 trial demonstrated a 22% rate of 30 days new-onset LBBB, which was 3-fold higher than the rate of the surgical group [11,19]. Regarding the self-expandable EVOLUT R/PRO system, the MARE study also found a low 8.0% rate of persistent LBBB. Nonetheless, other studies reported an incidence ranging from 18.0% to 44.2% [20,21,22,23]. Regarding other self-expandable systems, the PORTICO valve (Abbott Medical) showed rates of approximately 12% [24,25] while rates of 10.3% to 13.1% have been reported with the ACURATE Neo prosthesis (Boston Scientific) [22,23,26,27].

3.2. Clinical Impact

3.2.1. High-Degree Atrioventricular Block and Permanent Pacemaker Implantation

Three meta-analyses reported an approximately 2-fold higher rate of PPI associated with new-onset LBBB at mid-term (≈1 year) follow-up [28,29,30]. A significant impact of new-onset LBBB upon the risk of progression towards HAVB and PPI has consistently been reported either in-hospital [13,31,32,33,34] or at follow-up [32,33,35,36,37,38]. Furthermore, with the exception of the PARTNER I trial analysis [32], the vast majority of studies reported HAVB to be the leading indication (>70%) for PPI at follow-up. Some studies suggested that a QRS duration > 150–160 ms in the setting of new-onset LBBB was associated with a higher risk of late onset HAVB and sudden death [39,40], particularly when associated with a PR interval prolongation (>240 ms) [40,41,42].

3.2.2. Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) and Hospitalization for Heart Failure (HHF)

LBBB may be associated with deleterious ventricular remodeling and deterioration of left ventricular function [43]. Several studies have reported an impaired LVEF recovery after TAVR among new-onset LBBB patients [32,33,35,36,37,38,44,45]. This observation did not translate into a consistently increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) in individual studies. Nevertheless, the largest meta-analysis to date reported an increased 1-year HHF risk associated with new-onset LBBB (RR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.05–1.72) [30].

3.2.3. Mortality

Although it may act through the risk of progression to HAVB (and sudden death) and progressive heart failure as a result of LBBB-induced dyssynchrony, the effect of LBBB on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality has been inconsistent across studies. Regueiro et al. found an increased cardiovascular mortality risk in a meta-analysis of 5 studies, while only a trend was apparent for all-cause mortality combining data from 8 studies [28]. In their updated meta-analysis, Faroux et al. confirmed the deleterious impact upon cardiovascular mortality (RR = 1.46; 95% CI: 1.20–1.72), and unraveled a detrimental impact on all-cause mortality (RR = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.17–1.49) pooling data from 8 studies (5906 patients) and 12 studies (7792 patients), respectively [30].

4. Permanent Pacemaker Implantation

4.1. Incidence

According to a recent systematic review, post-TAVR rates of PPI with newer-generation devices range from 2.3% to 36.1% [8,46]. Rates were 4% to 24% with the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve, lower than those reported with the Medtronic EVOLUT R/PRO ranging from 14.7% to 31.3% [21,46]. Interestingly, the risk of PPI at 30 days post-procedure was not significantly different between the TAVR and surgical group in the PARTNER 3 trial, whereas it remained higher after implantation of a self-expandable valve in the EVOLUT Low-Risk trial [19,47]. With the PORTICO valve, rates ranging from 9.8% to 28.1% have been reported [24,48]. Overall, the ACURATE Neo prosthesis demonstrated the lowest rates ranging from 2.3% to 11.5% [26,49]. In the SCOPE I and SCOPE II randomized comparisons, the post-procedural rate of PPI with the ACURATE Neo was similar to the incidence observed with the SAPIEN 3 and significantly lower than the rate reported with the EVOLUT R/PRO, respectively [23,49].

4.2. Clinical Impact

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Hospitalization for Heart Failure
The impact of PPI on the evolution of LVEF after TAVR has been inconsistent from one study to another. Some studies suggested a significant decrease in LVEF at follow-up among patients undergoing PPI [36,50,51,52], while others reported no meaningful association [53,54,55,56,57]. These discrepancies may stem from differing pacing indications, pacing dependency, and populations across studies as deleterious effects of right ventricular pacing are more likely to occur in younger patients subjected to a high ventricular pacing percentage over a longer period [45].
PPI post-TAVR has been linked to a higher 1-year risk of HHF in a recent meta-analysis of crude study-level data (RR = 1.18 95% CI: 1.03–1.36) [30]. However, individual studies with a longer follow-up reached conflicting adjusted results [45,54,58].

4.3. Mortality

Faroux et al., reported an increased risk of 1-year all-cause mortality among pacemaker recipients post-TAVR (RR = 1.17 95% CI: 1.11–1.25) [30]. As previously discussed for HHF, long-term studies with a multivariable analysis reached inconsistent results regarding the independent impact of PPI in this finding [45,54,58]. This observation, along with the fact that PPI was not associated with an increased 1-year cardiovascular mortality in the meta-analysis by Faroux et al. [30], raises the issue of potential residual confounding in the association between PPI and post-TAVR mortality. Figure 1 summarizes the effects of new-onset LBBB and PPI on TAVR outcomes.

5. Unmet Needs

5.1. Pre-Procedural Management

Several studies have demonstrated that a significant proportion of TAVR candidates displayed HAVB or severe bradyarrhythmia during pre-procedural ECG monitoring either with 24-h in-hospital telemetry [59] or with ambulatory systems (patch ECG recorder, mobile telemetry), allowing a prolonged (≥7 days) recording [60,61]. Overall, approximately 3% of patients had HAVB episodes pre-TAVR, among whom 2/3 underwent pre-procedural PPI [62]. Furthermore, almost half of the patients with pre-TAVR bradyarrhythmic events benefited from a treatment change [59,60]. Bradyarrhythmic events were especially frequent among patients with 1st-degree AVB and right bundle branch block (RBBB) occurring in 30% and 47% of them, respectively [60]. Finally, among patients who received a pacemaker post-TAVR, 30% had HAVB episodes pre-TAVR [59,60]. These data suggest that pre-procedural ECG monitoring may be an appealing strategy to streamline patients care, especially those with the highest conduction disturbances risk (e.g., pre-existent RBBB and/or 1st-degree AVB). Nonetheless, further randomized studies are necessary to delineate the optimal indications, duration, clinical impact, and cost-effectiveness of pre-TAVR ambulatory ECG monitoring.

5.2. Procedural Management

Several approaches have been proposed in recent years to reduce the occurrence of conduction disturbances during TAVR. Jilaihawi et al. reported the MInimizing Depth According to the membranous Septum (MIDAS) approach, which suggests that a systematic pre-procedural evaluation of the length of the membranous septum below the aortic annulus plane may help tailor the implantation strategy to each patient anatomy [63]. Indeed, the performance of TAVR among increasingly younger and “healthier” patients may imply a need for future coronary re-access. Therefore, the optimal patient-specific implantation depth may result from a compromise between the need to prevent conduction disturbances and to access coronary artery during long-term follow-up. Consequently, in patients with a membranous septum length > 5 mm, considered at low risk of conduction disturbances by Jilaihawi et al., a deeper prosthesis position may be tolerated as long as it does not result in significant paravalvular leak [63]. Moreover, several studies have advocated for a higher implantation of transcatheter heart valves, especially using the cusp-overlap projection, which overlap coronary cusps and isolates the non-coronary cusp, thus providing a better appreciation of the implantation depth [64,65,66]. These reports usually demonstrated an approximately 2-fold lower rate of PPI associated with the use of the cusp-overlap technique. Nonetheless, only one study using a balloon-expandable valve reported a significantly lower rate of new-onset LBBB [64], whereas both studies using self-expandable valves showed a numerically higher rate in the cusp-overlap group compared with the conventional implantation technique [65,66]. Furthermore, the difference in mean implantation depth between the cusp-overlap and conventional implantation groups in these studies was <1 mm questioning the real impact of the cusp-overlap technique in the observed reduction of PPI rates. Finally, a rapid atrial pacing protocol at rates of 70 to 120 beats/min (or until AVB was observed) in 10 beats/min increments for a total of 20 beats at each increment at the end of the procedure was recently proposed to identify patients at low PPI risk within 30 days post-TAVR [67]. This technique demonstrated a 98.7% negative predictive value for 30 days PPI. Nonetheless, it competes with the minimalist approach, usually relying on left ventricular pacing using the stiff guidewire, thus avoiding the central venous puncture and temporary pacemaker placement, which may be associated with some inherent complications [68]. Overall, further studies are needed to delineate the true impact and optimal indications of these procedural techniques of recent emergence.

5.3. Post-Procedural Management

One of the main issues regarding post-TAVR conduction disturbances has been the differing management strategies across centers and operators resulting from the lack of consensus, which explain the major differences observed in PPI rates and impact post-TAVR. Several experts’ consensus and guidelines have been published in recent years [9,10,69], which should facilitate a uniform post-procedural management, and allow the performance of large-scale, prospective studies to better describe the long-term impact of these conduction disturbances. Another persistent challenge is the management of conduction disturbances not representing firm PPI indications, i.e., new-onset LBBB and significant PR or QRS prolongation (≥40 ms, especially if PR is >240 ms or QRS > 150 ms). Several studies have demonstrated the safety of using ambulatory ECG monitoring post-TAVR to expedite patients’ discharge and guide PPI in such cases [11,62,70,71,72,73]. Overall, in these studies, delayed HAVB rates have ranged from 5% to 10% and from 10% to 15% approximately, at 30 days and 1-year post-TAVR, respectively. Interestingly, in the largest study to date, encompassing 459 TAVR recipients, the rate of delayed HAVB was higher among patients with new-onset first degree AVB than in patients with new-onset LBBB [72]. Another study demonstrated that the delta between baseline and day 2 post-procedure in PR interval but not in QRS duration was significantly associated with episodes of delayed HAVB [73]. These data suggest that the prolongation of the atrioventricular conduction on the surface ECG may not be a benign occurrence resulting from a supra Hisian injury and that we may need to pay greater attention to this modification. On the other hand, some groups have proposed the use of in-hospital electrophysiological studies (EPS) to guide PPI post-TAVR. Studies focusing on this strategy are usually of limited sample size and used various EPS protocols as well as different HV interval cut-offs to retain an indication for PPI [2,74]. Therefore, the level of evidence seems weaker than for ambulatory ECG monitoring. Nonetheless, these studies have overall demonstrated an excellent negative predictive value of EPS in the post-TAVR setting with a somewhat lower positive predictive value [2,74]. The recent European pacing guidelines granted ambulatory ECG monitoring and EPS-guided strategies (EPS being performed at day 3 post-procedure and an HV interval > 70 ms being used to retain an indication for PPI) the same grade of recommendations in TAVR recipients with new-onset or worsened conduction disturbances [10]. Defining whether ambulatory ECG monitoring or EPS-guided strategies represent the best and more cost-effective option in the post-procedural management of TAVR-related conduction disturbances remains a major unmet need, which is currently addressed by the Clinical Monitoring Strategy Versus Electrophysiology-guided Algorithmic Approach With a New LBBB After TAVI (COME-TAVI) study (NCT03303612). Finally, among TAVR recipients with pre-existent depressed LVEF (<50%) and requiring PPI or with large new-onset LBBB (>150 ms), the role of cardiac resynchronization has not been properly studied yet. Table 1 summarizes ongoing studies regarding conduction disturbances in the setting of TAVR.

6. Concomitant Coronary Artery Disease in Patients Undergoing TAVR

6.1. Prevalence and Prognostic Impact

The prevalence of CAD in patients undergoing TAVR ranges from ~15% to 80% following the underlying operative risk [75]; a relationship led by the high number of shared risk factors including age, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension. These patients with exhibit also a high degree of CAD complexity with 50% of multivessel disease [76]. To date, the prognostic impact of CAD on outcomes is controversial. In one meta-analysis pooling 15 studies with more than 8000 patients undergoing TAVR, the presence of CAD (48.7%) was associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality at 1 year (Odds ratio (OR) = 1.21; 95% CI: 1.07–1.36) [77]. Conversely, a subsequent meta-analysis did not find such an association. However, patients with complex CAD as defined by a SYNTAX score > 22 had greater mortality at 1 year [76]. These contradictory results may be explained by the significant heterogeneity observed across the studies. Furthermore, one bias would be that the patients with severe CAD are usually undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, unless the estimated surgical risk is high and may require TAVR.

6.2. CAD Definition and Hemodynamics Assessment of the Stenosis

Only a limited number of studies provide an objective coronary lesion measurement by quantitative coronary angiography or hemodynamic assessment. In most cases, the indication of revascularization is left at the physician’s discretion, which may have introduced a significant bias. Of interest, since noninvasive ischemia testing is underperformed during TAVR work-out, mainly for patients’ frailty, coronary hemodynamic assessment would be a valuable option to support revascularization-decision making. In this context, both FFR and iFR have been tested in patients with AS [78,79]. In a retrospective single-center study, FFR-guided (n = 122/216) revascularization in patients undergoing TAVR showed better outcomes, defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, any coronary revascularization, or disabling stroke compared to the angio-guided group (Hazard ratio (HR) = 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2–1.0). Superiority was even more significant comparing only deferred lesions, based on conventional FFR 0.80 cutoff value (111/142; 78.2%), versus angio-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (HR = 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1–0.6) [79]. This last result highlights the possibility to minimize coronary intervention and accordingly antithrombotic strategy in a population with a theoretical high risk of bleeding.
Hemodynamic changes in coronary blood flow and other coronary physiological parameters after TAVR were assessed by Vendrik J. and colleagues in 13 patients with AS [80]. Interestingly, hyperemic coronary flow velocity increases acutely after TAVR and continues to rise to 6-month follow-up. Conversely, resting diastolic flow, and consequently, iFR is not affected by severe AS and remains unchanged pre-TAVR, post-TAVR, and at 6-month follow-up. Yamanaka et al. [81] showed a good correlation between FFR and iFR in discriminating myocardial ischemia with perfusion scintigraphy, identifying iFR < 0.82 as the new cut-off for an FFR < 0.75 and myocardial ischemia on perfusion scintigraphy. This cut-off of 0.82 for iFR was further confirmed in another study [82]. The ongoing trials FAITAVI (Functional Assessment in TAVI), NOTION-3 (Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation), and TAVI-PET (Correlation of FFR and iFR With Cardiac PET Perfusion in Patients with Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis) will provide information to comprehend the role of FFR/iFR in this group of patients.

6.3. Heterogeneity in Endpoint Definition

The heterogeneity in endpoint definition and lack of long-term follow-up (>3 y.o.) may fail to discriminate CAD as an independent prognostic determinant rather than a simple marker of comorbidity and increased risk status. Looking into perspective, a longer follow-up becomes even more important when younger and lower-risk patients are treated with TAVR.
In this perspective, Minten and colleagues [83] recently published the results of a large prospective single-center observational study, evaluating the interplay between CAD complexity, its management, and long-term outcomes after TAVR. This study, including 604 all-comers patients from 2008 to 2020, has shown that: (1) 346 patients presenting CAD had significantly worse all-cause death (55.1% vs. 67.9%; HR = 1.41; p = 0.022) and cardiovascular death (74.9% vs. 84.9%; HR = 1.62; p = 0.039) as compared with those without CAD at 5-year follow-up; a difference that was not significant at shorter term (1–3 years) of follow up; (2) the presence of complex CAD, defined as syntax score >22, was an independent predictor for cardiovascular death at 5 years after TAVR; and (3) neither pre-TAVR PCI nor completeness of revascularization seemed to reduce the increased risk for these adverse clinical outcomes. Despite the small number of patients retained after 2 years of follow-up (~40%), this study highlights the importance of a prolonged observational period to bring out the prognostic impact of CAD and its complexity and confirmed the uncertainty about the timing and completeness of revascularization.
The ACTIVATION (PercutAneous Coronary inTervention prIor to transcatheter aortic VAlve implantaTION) trial evaluated the impact of revascularization in 235 patients with significant CAD, assigned to receive PCI or no PCI before TAVR. At 1 year, rates of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization were similar between the groups, occurring in 41.5% of patients who underwent PCI and 44% of those who did not. Unfortunately, the noninferiority margin was not met (difference: −2.5%; 1-sided upper 95% confidence limit: 8.5%; 1-sided noninferiority test p = 0.067). However, in the as-treated analysis, the difference was −3.7% (1-sided upper 95% confidence limit: 7.5%; p = 0.050), with no difference in the rates of stroke, myocardial infarction, or acute kidney injury, with higher rates of any bleed in the PCI arm [84].
Similar results were observed in a recently published meta-analysis pooling 24 studies and 12,182 TAVR patients of which 4110 (33.7%) underwent pre-TAVR PCI, with 30-day (OR = 1.19; 95% CI: 0.91–1.55) as well as 1-year mortality (OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 0.95–1.31) being comparable. Finally, as observed in the ACTIVATION trial, this meta-analysis also found an increased risk of life-threatening bleeding at 30 days [85].

6.4. Optimal Timing of Revascularization

Evidence supporting PCI before or after TAVR is scarce, and the optimal timing of PCI in patients scheduled for TAVR is still a matter of debate. The 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease recommends PCI before TAVR for the treatment of left main or proximal CAD [86]. Conversely, the 2021 guidelines from the European society of cardiology recommend revascularization based on clinical presentation, coronary anatomy, and extent of myocardial at risk [87] (Table 2).
Figure 2 illustrates advantages and disadvantages of performing PCI before or after TAVR.
A retrospective registry including 55,754 patients treated with TAVR from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2019, provide one of the largest available landscapes on the current clinical practice in this subset of patients. In this population based on the national hospitalization PMSI (Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d’Information) database covering hospital care from the entire French population, a total of 8613 (15%) subjects had a PCI from 90 days before to 90 days after the TAVR procedure. In most cases, PCI was performed before TAVR (n = 8384) and was more frequently performed in the post-TAVR subgroup only for acute MI. Of interest is that after propensity score matching, similar outcomes were observed between PCI first versus post-TAVR at 30 days as well as 1 year of follow-up (459 ± 569 days) [88]. This registry confirms that most of the patients with CAD are treated before TAVR, despite this being associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury, bleeding, and vascular complications [89,90]. This is probably because the selective ostia re-engagement remains a matter of concern for interventional cardiologists, who prefer to perform PCI after TAVR only in limited cases such as ACS.
Challenges in ostium re-engagement may be related to anatomical, procedural, and prosthesis features. Sinotubular junction dimension, sinus height, leaflet length and bulkiness, sinus of Valsalva width, and coronary height are anatomical key features that may or may not facilitate ostia engagement. On the other hand, commissural tab orientation, sealing skirt height, and valve implantation depth represent the procedural features that may influence engagement [91]. The single-center prospective RE-ACCESS study has shown that Evolut Valve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA), and prosthesis implantation depth were predictors of unsuccessful coronary cannulation, while the ALIGN TAVR study [92] showed that orienting the Evolut delivery catheter with the flush port positioned at 3 o’clock and tracking the Evolut hat marker at the outer curve of the thoracic aorta reduced the incidence of severe coronary artery overlap from 38% to 24%.
On a valve type point of view, Evolut prosthesis may not allow an easy engagement compared with Sapien valves (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) [91,93,94]. Indeed, the self-expandable design extends beyond coronary ostia with a high risk to hinder selective coronary cannulation by the neo-commissure of the prosthesis. Conversely, the lower length and the wider upper row of the Sapien valve stent frame compared to the Evolut simplify selective coronary cannulation [91,93].
In summarizing, according to the current evidence, CAD management in patients undergoing TAVR should consider clinical characteristics, anatomical valve structure, type of valve chosen, and finally the complexity of CAD.
Finally, several ongoing studies will provide further information about the optimal management of CAD in patients undergoing TAVR. In particular, the NOTION-3 (NCT03058627) and the FAITAVI (NCT03360591) randomized trials will evaluate the role of FFR-guided complete revascularization on outcomes. The COMPLETE TAVR (NCT04634240) trial will randomize 4000 patients with significant CAD after successful TAVR to PCI versus medical therapy alone.

7. Conclusions

Despite some discrepancies in the available literature, a detrimental impact of conduction disturbances, i.e., new-onset LBBB and PPI, on mid-to-long-term outcomes post-TAVR is likely. Alongside conduction disturbances, coronary artery disease is another element of concern for patients undergoing TAVR. Risk stratification, stenosis evaluation, and timing of intervention are key points to face during TAVR work-out. However, several issues remained unaddressed throughout the TAVR workflow and should be the focus of future prospective studies to reduce the burden of post-TAVR conduction disturbances and provide even more evidence for the treatment of coexisting CAD.

Author Contributions

V.A., C.R., N.S. and S.S. performed the literature review and drafted, substantially reviewed, and approved the submitted version of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

V.A. received lecture fees from Edwards Lifescience and Medtronic and consulting fees from Boston Scientific.

References

  1. Sorrentino, S.; Giustino, G.; Moalem, K.; Indolfi, C.; Mehran, R.; Dangas, G.D. Antithrombotic Treatment after Transcatheter Heart Valves Implant. Semin. Thromb. Hemost. 2018, 44, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Bourenane, H.; Galand, V.; Boulmier, D.; Leclercq, C.; Leurent, G.; Bedossa, M.; Behar, N.; Pichard, C.; Polin, B.; Tomasi, J.; et al. Electrophysiological Study-Guided Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients With Conduction Disturbances Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 2021, 149, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Giustino, G.; Sorrentino, S.; Mehran, R.; Faggioni, M.; Dangas, G. Cerebral Embolic Protection During TAVR. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017, 69, 465–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Guedeney, P.; Tchétché, D.; Petronio, A.S.; Mehilli, J.; Sartori, S.; Lefèvre, T.; Presbitero, P.; Capranzano, P.; Iadanza, A.; Sardella, G.; et al. Impact of coronary artery disease and percutaneous coronary intervention in women undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: From the WIN-TAVI registry. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2019, 93, 1124–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Guedeney, P.; Sorrentino, S.; Mesnier, J.; De, R.S.; Indolfi, C.; Zeitouni, M.; Kerneis, M.; Silvain, J.; Montalescot, G.; Collet, J.-P. Single Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Following TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2021, 14, 234–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Auffret, V.; Puri, R.; Urena, M.; Chamandi, C.; Rodriguez-Gabella, T.; Philippon, F.; Rodes-Cabau, J. Conduction Disturbances After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Circulation 2017, 136, 1049–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Muntané-Carol, G.; Guimaraes, L.; Ferreira-Neto, A.N.; Wintzer-Wehekind, J.; Junquera, L.; Del Val, D.; Faroux, L.; Philippon, F.; Rodés-Cabau, J. How does new-onset left bundle branch block affect the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve repair? Expert Rev. Med. Devices 2019, 16, 589–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Sammour, Y.; Krishnaswamy, A.; Kumar, A.; Puri, R.; Tarakji, K.G.; Bazarbashi, N.; Harb, S.; Griffin, B.; Svensson, L.; Wazni, O.; et al. Incidence, Predictors, and Implications of Permanent Pacemaker Requirement After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2021, 14, 115–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Rodes-Cabau, J.; Ellenbogen, K.A.; Krahn, A.D.; Latib, A.; Mack, M.; Mittal, S.; Muntane-Carol, G.; Nazif, T.M.; Sondergaard, L.; Urena, M.; et al. Management of Conduction Disturbances Associated With Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: JACC Scientific Expert Panel. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 74, 1086–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Glikson, M.; Nielsen, J.C.; Kronborg, M.B.; Michowitz, Y.; Auricchio, A.; Barbash, I.M.; Barrabés, J.A.; Boriani, G.; Braunschweig, F.; Brignole, M.; et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 3427–3520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Rodes-Cabau, J.; Urena, M.; Nombela-Franco, L.; Amat-Santos, I.; Kleiman, N.; Munoz-Garcia, A.; Atienza, F.; Serra, V.; Deyell, M.W.; Veiga-Fernandez, G.; et al. Arrhythmic Burden as Determined by Ambulatory Continuous Cardiac Monitoring in Patients With New-Onset Persistent Left Bundle Branch Block Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The MARE Study. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2018, 11, 1495–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. De Torres-Alba, F.; Kaleschke, G.; Diller, G.P.; Vormbrock, J.; Orwat, S.; Radke, R.; Reinke, F.; Fischer, D.; Reinecke, H.; Baumgartner, H. 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, 805–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Gonska, B.; Seeger, J.; Kessler, M.; von Keil, A.; Rottbauer, W.; Wohrle, J. Predictors for permanent pacemaker implantation in patients undergoing transfemoral aortic valve implantation with the Edwards Sapien 3 valve. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2017, 106, 590–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Schwerg, M.; Fulde, F.; Dreger, H.; Poller, W.C.; Stangl, K.; Laule, M. Optimized Implantation Height of the Edwards SAPIEN 3 Valve to Minimize Pacemaker Implantation After TAVI. J. Intervent. Cardiol. 2016, 29, 370–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Husser, O.; Pellegrini, C.; Kessler, T.; Burgdorf, C.; Thaller, H.; Mayr, N.P.; Kasel, A.M.; Kastrati, A.; Schunkert, H.; Hengstenberg, C. Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantations and New-Onset Conduction Abnormalities With the SAPIEN 3 Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Heart Valve. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2016, 9, 244–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Webb, J.; Gerosa, G.; Lefèvre, T.; Leipsic, J.; Spence, M.; Thomas, M.; Thielmann, M.; Treede, H.; Wendler, O.; Walther, T. Multicenter evaluation of a next-generation balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2014, 64, 2235–2243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Vahanian, A.; Urena, M.; Walther, T.; Treede, H.; Wendler, O.; Lefèvre, T.; Spence, M.S.; Redwood, S.; Kahlert, P.; Rodes-Cabau, J.; et al. Thirty-day outcomes in patients at intermediate risk for surgery from the SAPIEN 3 European approval trial. EuroInterv. J. Eur. Collab. Work. Group Interv. Cardiol. Eur. Soc. Cardiol. 2016, 12, e235–e243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Finkelstein, A.; Birati, E.Y.; Abramowitz, Y.; Steinvil, A.; Sheinberg, N.; Biner, S.; Bazan, S.; Ben Gal, Y.; Halkin, A.; Arbel, Y.; et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A single-center experience of 300 cases. Isr. Med. Assoc. J. 2013, 15, 613–616. [Google Scholar]
  19. Mack, M.J.; Leon, M.B.; Thourani, V.H.; Makkar, R.; Kodali, S.K.; Russo, M.; Kapadia, S.R.; Malaisrie, S.C.; Cohen, D.J.; Pibarot, P.; et al. Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 1695–1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zaid, S.; Sengupta, A.; Okoli, K.; Tsoi, M.; Khan, A.; Ahmad, H.; Goldberg, J.B.; Undemir, C.; Rozenshtein, A.; Patel, N.; et al. Novel Anatomic Predictors of New Persistent Left Bundle Branch Block After Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 2020, 125, 1222–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rao, G.; Sheth, S.; Donnelly, J.; Scatola, A.; Tariq, U.; Laighold, S.; Grines, C.; Rutkin, B. Early Real-World Experience with CoreValve Evolut PRO and R Systems for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. J. Intervent. Cardiol. 2019, 2019, 1906814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Sticchi, A.; Gallo, F.; Marzo, V.D.; Won-keun, K.; Khokhar, A.A.; Zeus, T.; Toggweiler, S.; Marco, F.D.; Reimers, B.; Nombela-franco, L.; et al. Comparison of incidence and predictors of new left bundle branch block and permanent pacemaker implantation in a large multicentre contemporary TAVI registry using the Evolut R/pro system vs. the accurate neo valve. Eur. Heart J. Suppl. 2021, 23, suab134.044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tamburino, C.; Bleiziffer, S.; Thiele, H.; Scholtz, S.; Hildick-Smith, D.; Cunnington, M.; Wolf, A.; Barbanti, M.; Tchetchè, D.; Garot, P.; et al. Comparison of Self-Expanding Bioprostheses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis. Circulation 2020, 142, 2431–2442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Manoharan, G.; Linke, A.; Moellmann, H.; Redwood, S.; Frerker, C.; Kovac, J.; Walther, T. Multicentre clinical study evaluating a novel resheathable annular functioning self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve system: Safety and performance results at 30 days with the Portico system. EuroIntervention 2016, 12, 768–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Walther, T.; Manoharan, G.; Linke, A.; Möllmann, H.; Holzhey, D.; Worthley, S.G.; Kim, W.-K.; Schäfer, U. Incidence of new-onset left bundle branch block and predictors of new permanent pacemaker following transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the PorticoTM valve. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. Off. J. Eur. Assoc. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2018, 54, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Toggweiler, S.; Nissen, H.; Mogensen, B.; Cuculi, F.; Fallesen, C.; Veien, K.T.; Brinkert, M.; Kobza, R.; Rück, A. Very low pacemaker rate following ACURATE neo transcatheter heart valve implantation. EuroInterv. J. Eur. Collab. Work. Group Interv. Cardiol. Eur. Soc. Cardiol. 2017, 13, 1273–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Brinkert, M.; Wolfrum, M.; Moccetti, F.; Bossard, M.; Berte, B.; Cuculi, F.; Kobza, R.; Toggweiler, S. Relevance of New Conduction Disorders After Implantation of the ACURATE Neo Transcatheter Heart Valve in the Aortic Valve Position. Am. J. Cardiol. 2020, 125, 783–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Regueiro, A.; Abdul-Jawad Altisent, O.; Del Trigo, M.; Campelo-Parada, F.; Puri, R.; Urena, M.; Philippon, F.; Rodes-Cabau, J. Impact of New-Onset Left Bundle Branch Block and Periprocedural Permanent Pacemaker Implantation on Clinical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2016, 9, e003635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ando, T.; Takagi, H. The Prognostic Impact of New-Onset Persistent Left Bundle Branch Block Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Meta-analysis. Clin. Cardiol. 2016, 39, 544–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Faroux, L.; Chen, S.; Muntané-Carol, G.; Regueiro, A.; Philippon, F.; Sondergaard, L.; Jørgensen, T.H.; Lopez-Aguilera, J.; Kodali, S.; Leon, M.; et al. Clinical impact of conduction disturbances in transcatheter aortic valve replacement recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Heart J. 2020, 41, 2771–2781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Akin, I.; Kische, S.; Paranskaya, L.; Schneider, H.; Rehders, T.C.; Trautwein, U.; Turan, G.; Bansch, D.; Thiele, O.; Divchev, D.; et al. Predictive factors for pacemaker requirement after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. BMC Cardiovasc. Disord. 2012, 12, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Nazif, T.M.; Williams, M.R.; Hahn, R.T.; Kapadia, S.; Babaliaros, V.; Rodes-Cabau, J.; Szeto, W.Y.; Jilaihawi, H.; Fearon, W.F.; Dvir, D.; et al. Clinical implications of new-onset left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Analysis of the PARTNER experience. Eur. Heart J. 2014, 35, 1599–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Urena, M.; Mok, M.; Serra, V.; Dumont, E.; Nombela-Franco, L.; DeLarochellière, R.; Doyle, D.; Igual, A.; Larose, E.; Amat-Santos, I.; et al. Predictive factors and long-term clinical consequences of persistent left bundle branch block following transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a balloon-expandable valve. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2012, 60, 1743–1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Keßler, M.; Gonska, B.; Seeger, J.; Rottbauer, W.; Wöhrle, J. Long-term clinical outcome of persistent left bundle branch block after transfemoral aortic valve implantation. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. Off. J. Soc. Card. Angiogr. Interv. 2019, 93, 538–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Urena, M.; Webb, J.G.; Cheema, A.; Serra, V.; Toggweiler, S.; Barbanti, M.; Cheung, A.; Ye, J.; Dumont, E.; DeLarochellière, R.; et al. Impact of new-onset persistent left bundle branch block on late clinical outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a balloon-expandable valve. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2014, 7, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Carrabba, N.; Valenti, R.; Migliorini, A.; Marrani, M.; Cantini, G.; Parodi, G.; Dovellini, E.V.; Antoniucci, D. 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, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nazif, T.M.; Chen, S.; George, I.; Dizon, J.M.; Hahn, R.T.; Crowley, A.; Alu, M.C.; Babaliaros, V.; Thourani, V.H.; Herrmann, H.C.; et al. New-onset left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve replacement is associated with adverse long-term clinical outcomes in intermediate-risk patients: An analysis from the PARTNER II trial. Eur. Heart J. 2019, 40, 2218–2227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Chamandi, C.; Barbanti, M.; Munoz-Garcia, A.; Latib, A.; Nombela-Franco, L.; Gutierrez-Ibanez, E.; Veiga-Fernandez, G.; Cheema, A.N.; Cruz-Gonzalez, I.; Serra, V.; et al. Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With New-Onset Persistent Left Bundle Branch Block Following TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2019, 12, 1175–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Urena, M.; Webb, J.G.; Eltchaninoff, H.; Muñoz-García, A.J.; Bouleti, C.; Tamburino, C.; Nombela-Franco, L.; Nietlispach, F.; Moris, C.; Ruel, M.; et al. Late cardiac death in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Incidence and predictors of advanced heart failure and sudden cardiac death. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2015, 65, 437–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Jørgensen, T.H.; De Backer, O.; Gerds, T.A.; Bieliauskas, G.; Svendsen, J.H.; Søndergaard, L. Immediate Post-Procedural 12-Lead Electrocardiography as Predictor of Late Conduction Defects After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2018, 11, 1509–1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Toggweiler, S.; Stortecky, S.; Holy, E.; Zuk, K.; Cuculi, F.; Nietlispach, F.; Sabti, Z.; Suciu, R.; Maier, W.; Jamshidi, P.; et al. The Electrocardiogram After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Determines the Risk for Post-Procedural High-Degree AV Block and the Need for Telemetry Monitoring. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2016, 9, 1269–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Mangieri, A.; Lanzillo, G.; Bertoldi, L.; Jabbour, R.J.; Regazzoli, D.; Ancona, M.B.; Tanaka, A.; Mitomo, S.; Garducci, S.; Montalto, C.; et al. Predictors of Advanced Conduction Disturbances Requiring a Late (≥48 H) Permanent Pacemaker Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2018, 11, 1519–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Auffret, V.; Martins, R.P.; Daubert, C.; Leclercq, C.; Le Breton, H.; Mabo, P.; Donal, E. Idiopathic/Iatrogenic Left Bundle Branch Block-Induced Reversible Left Ventricle Dysfunction: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2018, 72, 3177–3188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Dobson, L.E.; Musa, T.A.; Uddin, A.; Fairbairn, T.A.; Bebb, O.J.; Swoboda, P.P.; Haaf, P.; Foley, J.; Garg, P.; Fent, G.J.; et al. The impact of trans-catheter aortic valve replacement induced left-bundle branch block on cardiac reverse remodeling. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 2017, 19, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Jorgensen, T.H.; De Backer, O.; Gerds, T.A.; Bieliauskas, G.; Svendsen, J.H.; Sondergaard, L. Mortality and Heart Failure Hospitalization in Patients With Conduction Abnormalities After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2019, 12, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. van Rosendael, P.J.; Delgado, V.; Bax, J.J. Pacemaker implantation rate after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with early and new-generation devices: A systematic review. Eur. Heart J. 2018, 39, 2003–2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Popma, J.J.; Deeb, G.M.; Yakubov, S.J.; Mumtaz, M.; Gada, H.; O’Hair, D.; Bajwa, T.; Heiser, J.C.; Merhi, W.; Kleiman, N.S.; et al. Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Valve in Low-Risk Patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 1706–1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Makkar, R.R.; Cheng, W.; Waksman, R.; Satler, L.F.; Chakravarty, T.; Groh, M.; Abernethy, W.; Russo, M.J.; Heimansohn, D.; Hermiller, J.; et al. Self-expanding intra-annular versus commercially available transcatheter heart valves in high and extreme risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (PORTICO IDE): A randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2020, 396, 669–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lanz, J.; Kim, W.-K.; Walther, T.; Burgdorf, C.; Möllmann, H.; Linke, A.; Redwood, S.; Thilo, C.; Hilker, M.; Joner, M.; et al. Safety and efficacy of a self-expanding versus a balloon-expandable bioprosthesis for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: A randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2019, 394, 1619–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Urena, M.; Webb, J.G.; Tamburino, C.; Muñoz-García, A.J.; Cheema, A.; Dager, A.E.; Serra, V.; Amat-Santos, I.J.; Barbanti, M.; Immè, S.; et al. Permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Impact on late clinical outcomes and left ventricular function. Circulation 2014, 129, 1233–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Biner, S.; Michowitz, Y.; Leshem-Rubinow, E.; Topilsky, Y.; Ben-Assa, E.; Shimiaie, J.; Banai, S.; Keren, G.; Steinvil, A.; Finkelstein, A. Hemodynamic impact and outcome of permanent pacemaker implantation following transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 2014, 113, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Costa, G.; Zappulla, P.; Barbanti, M.; Cirasa, A.; Todaro, D.; Rapisarda, G.; Picci, A.; Platania, F.; Tosto, A.; Di Grazia, A.; et al. Pacemaker dependency after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Incidence, predictors and long-term outcomes. EuroInterv. J. Eur. Collab. Work. Group Interv. Cardiol. Eur. Soc. Cardiol. 2019, 15, 875–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Nazif, T.M.; Dizon, J.M.; Hahn, R.T.; Xu, K.; Babaliaros, V.; Douglas, P.S.; El-Chami, M.F.; Herrmann, H.C.; Mack, M.; Makkar, R.R.; 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, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Sharobeem, S.; Boulmier, D.; Leurent, G.; Bedossa, M.; Leclercq, C.; Mabo, P.; Martins, R.P.; Tomasi, J.; Verhoye, J.-P.; Donal, E.; et al. Prognostic impact of permanent pacemaker implantation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Heart Rhythm 2022, 19, 1124–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Alasti, M.; Rashid, H.; Rangasamy, K.; Kotschet, E.; Adam, D.; Alison, J.; Gooley, R.; Zaman, S. Long-term pacemaker dependency and impact of pacing on mortality following transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the LOTUS valve. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. Off. J. Soc. Card. Angiogr. Interv. 2018, 92, 777–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Dumonteil, N.; Meredith, I.T.; Blackman, D.J.; Tchétché, D.; Hildick-Smith, D.; Spence, M.S.; Walters, D.L.; Harnek, J.; Worthley, S.G.; Rioufol, G.; et al. Insights into the need for permanent pacemaker following implantation of the repositionable LOTUS valve for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in 250 patients: Results from the REPRISE II trial with extended cohort. EuroInterv. J. Eur. Collab. Work. Group Interv. Cardiol. Eur. Soc. Cardiol. 2017, 13, 796–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Meduri, C.U.; Kereiakes, D.J.; Rajagopal, V.; Makkar, R.R.; O’Hair, D.; Linke, A.; Waksman, R.; Babliaros, V.; Stoler, R.C.; Mishkel, G.J.; et al. Pacemaker Implantation and Dependency After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the REPRISE III Trial. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2019, 8, e012594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Chamandi, C.; Barbanti, M.; Munoz-Garcia, A.; Latib, A.; Nombela-Franco, L.; Gutierrez-Ibanez, E.; Veiga-Fernandez, G.; Cheema, A.N.; Cruz-Gonzalez, I.; Serra, V.; et al. Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With New Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2018, 11, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Urena, M.; Hayek, S.; Cheema, A.N.; Serra, V.; Amat-Santos, I.J.; Nombela-Franco, L.; Ribeiro, H.B.; Allende, R.; Paradis, J.-M.; Dumont, E.; et al. Arrhythmia burden in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis as determined by continuous electrocardiographic recording: Toward a better understanding of arrhythmic events after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2015, 131, 469–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Asmarats, L.; Nault, I.; Ferreira-Neto, A.N.; Muntané-Carol, G.; Del Val, D.; Junquera, L.; Paradis, J.-M.; Delarochellière, R.; Mohammadi, S.; Kalavrouziotis, D.; et al. Prolonged Continuous Electrocardiographic Monitoring Prior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The PARE Study. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2020, 13, 1763–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Winter, J.L.; Healey, J.S.; Sheth, T.N.; Velianou, J.L.; Schwalm, J.-D.; Smith, A.; Reza, S.; Natarajan, M.K. Remote Ambulatory Cardiac Monitoring Before and After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. CJC Open 2020, 2, 416–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Muntané-Carol, G.; Philippon, F.; Nault, I.; Faroux, L.; Alperi, A.; Mittal, S.; Rodés-Cabau, J. Ambulatory Electrocardiogram Monitoring in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2021, 77, 1344–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Jilaihawi, H.; Zhao, Z.; Du, R.; Staniloae, C.; Saric, M.; Neuburger, P.J.; Querijero, M.; Vainrib, A.; Hisamoto, K.; Ibrahim, H.; et al. Minimizing Permanent Pacemaker Following Repositionable Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2019, 12, 1796–1807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sammour, Y.; Banerjee, K.; Kumar, A.; Lak, H.; Chawla, S.; Incognito, C.; Patel, J.; Kaur, M.; Abdelfattah, O.; Svensson, L.G.; et al. Systematic Approach to High Implantation of SAPIEN-3 Valve Achieves a Lower Rate of Conduction Abnormalities Including Pacemaker Implantation. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2021, 14, e009407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pascual, I.; Almendárez, M.; Avanzas, P.; Álvarez, R.; Arboine, L.A.; Del Valle, R.; Hernández-Vaquero, D.; Alfonso, F.; Morís, C. Cusp-overlapping TAVI technique with a self-expanding device optimizes implantation depth and reduces permanent pacemaker requirement. Rev. Espanola Cardiol. Engl. Ed. 2021, 75, 412–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pascual, I.; Hernández-Vaquero, D.; Alperi, A.; Almendarez, M.; Avanzas, P.; Kalavrouziotis, D.; Lorca, R.; Mesnier, J.; Arboine, L.; Mohammadi, S.; et al. Permanent Pacemaker Reduction Using Cusp-Overlapping Projection in TAVR: A Propensity Score Analysis. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2022, 15, 150–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Krishnaswamy, A.; Sammour, Y.; Mangieri, A.; Kadri, A.; Karrthik, A.; Banerjee, K.; Kaur, M.; Giannini, F.; Pagliaro, B.; Ancona, M.; et al. The Utility of Rapid Atrial Pacing Immediately Post-TAVR to Predict the Need for Pacemaker Implantation. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2020, 13, 1046–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Faurie, B.; Souteyrand, G.; Staat, P.; Godin, M.; Caussin, C.; Van Belle, E.; Mangin, L.; Meyer, P.; Dumonteil, N.; Abdellaoui, M.; et al. Left Ventricular Rapid Pacing Via the Valve Delivery Guidewire in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2019, 12, 2449–2459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Lilly, S.M.; Deshmukh, A.J.; Epstein, A.E.; Ricciardi, M.J.; Shreenivas, S.; Velagapudi, P.; Wyman, J.F. 2020 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Conduction Disturbances in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2020, 76, 2391–2411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ream, K.; Sandhu, A.; Valle, J.; Weber, R.; Kaizer, A.; Wiktor, D.M.; Borne, R.T.; Tumolo, A.Z.; Kunkel, M.; Zipse, M.M.; et al. Ambulatory Rhythm Monitoring to Detect Late High-Grade Atrioventricular Block Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 73, 2538–2547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Tian, Y.; Padmanabhan, D.; McLeod, C.J.; Zhang, P.; Xiao, P.; Sandhu, G.S.; Greason, K.L.; Gulati, R.; Nkomo, V.T.; Rihal, C.S.; et al. Utility of 30-Day Continuous Ambulatory Monitoring to Identify Patients With Delayed Occurrence of Atrioventricular Block After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2019, 12, e007635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Muntané-Carol, G.; Okoh, A.K.; Chen, C.; Nault, I.; Kassotis, J.; Mohammadi, S.; Coromilas, J.; Lee, L.Y.; Alperi, A.; Philippon, F.; et al. Ambulatory Electrocardiographic Monitoring Following Minimalist Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2021, 14, 2711–2722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Reiter, C.; Lambert, T.; Kellermair, J.; Blessberger, H.; Fellner, A.; Nahler, A.; Grund, M.; Steinwender, C. Delayed Total Atrioventricular Block After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Assessed by Implantable Loop Recorders. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2021, 14, 2723–2732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Tovia-Brodie, O.; Michowitz, Y.; Belhassen, B. Use of Electrophysiological Studies in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. Arrhythmia Electrophysiol. Rev. 2020, 9, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Faroux, L.; Guimaraes, L.; Wintzer-Wehekind, J.; Junquera, L.; Ferreira-Neto, A.N.; del Val, D.; Muntané-Carol, G.; Mohammadi, S.; Paradis, J.-M.; Rodés-Cabau, J. Coronary Artery Disease and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 74, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. D’ascenzo, F.; Verardi, R.; Visconti, M.; Conrotto, F.; Scacciatella, P.; Dziewierz, A.; Stefanini, G.; Paradis, J.-M.; Omedè, P.; Kodali, S.; et al. Independent Impact of Extent of Coronary Artery Disease and Percutaneous Revascularisation on 30-day and One-Year Mortality after TAVI: A Meta-Analysis of Adjusted Observational Results. Available online: https://eurointervention.pcronline.com/article/independent-impact-of-extent-of-coronary-artery-disease-and-percutaneous-revascularisation-on-30-day-and-one-year-mortality-after-tavi-a-meta-analysis-of-adjusted-observational-results (accessed on 17 September 2022).
  77. Sankaramangalam, K.; Banerjee, K.; Kandregula, K.; Mohananey, D.; Parashar, A.; Jones, B.M.; Jobanputra, Y.; Mick, S.; Krishnaswamy, A.; Svensson, L.G.; et al. Impact of Coronary Artery Disease on 30-Day and 1-Year Mortality in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2017, 6, e006092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Ahmad, Y.; Götberg, M.; Cook, C.; Howard, J.P.; Malik, I.; Mikhail, G.; Frame, A.; Petraco, R.; Rajkumar, C.; Demir, O.; et al. Coronary Hemodynamics in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Implications for Clinical Indices of Coronary Stenosis Severity. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2018, 11, 2019–2031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Lunardi, M.; Scarsini, R.; Venturi, G.; Pesarini, G.; Pighi, M.; Gratta, A.; Gottin, L.; Barbierato, M.; Caprioglio, F.; Piccoli, A.; et al. Physiological Versus Angiographic Guidance for Myocardial Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2019, 8, e012618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Vendrik, J.; Ahmad, Y.; Eftekhari, A.; Howard, J.P.; Wijntjens, G.W.M.; Stegehuis, V.E.; Cook, C.; Terkelsen, C.J.; Christiansen, E.H.; Koch, K.T.; et al. Long-Term Effects of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation on Coronary Hemodynamics in Patients With Concomitant Coronary Artery Disease and Severe Aortic Stenosis. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2020, 9, e015133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Yamanaka, F.; Shishido, K.; Ochiai, T.; Moriyama, N.; Yamazaki, K.; Sugitani, A.; Tani, T.; Tobita, K.; Mizuno, S.; Tanaka, Y.; et al. Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio for the Assessment of Intermediate Coronary Artery Stenosis in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis: Comparison With Myocardial Perfusion Scintigraphy. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2018, 11, 2032–2040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Scarsini, R.; Cantone, R.; Venturi, G.; De Maria, G.L.; Variola, A.; Braggio, P.; Lunardi, M.; Pesarini, G.; Ferdeghini, M.; Piccoli, A.; et al. Correlation between intracoronary physiology and myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Int. J. Cardiol. 2019, 292, 162–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Minten, L.; Wissels, P.; McCutcheon, K.; Bennett, J.; Adriaenssens, T.; Desmet, W.; Sinnaeve, P.; Verbrugghe, P.; Jacobs, S.; Guler, I.; et al. The Effect of Coronary Lesion Complexity and Preprocedural Revascularization on 5-Year Outcomes After TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2022, 15, 1611–1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Patterson, T.; Clayton, T.; Dodd, M.; Khawaja, Z.; Morice, M.C.; Wilson, K.; Kim, W.-K.; Meneveau, N.; Hambrecht, R.; Byrne, J.; et al. ACTIVATION (PercutAneous Coronary inTervention prIor to transcatheter aortic VAlve implantaTION): A Randomized Clinical Trial. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2021, 14, 1965–1974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lateef, N.; Khan, M.S.; Deo, S.V.; Yamani, N.; Riaz, H.; Virk, H.U.H.; Khan, S.U.; Hedrick, D.P.; Kanaan, A.; Reed, G.W.; et al. Meta-Analysis Comparing Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Versus Without Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Am. J. Cardiol. 2019, 124, 1757–1764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Otto, C.M.; Nishimura, R.A.; Bonow, R.O.; Carabello, B.A.; Erwin, J.P.; Gentile, F.; Jneid, H.; Krieger, E.V.; Mack, M.; McLeod, C.; et al. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2021, 143, e35–e71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Vahanian, A.; Beyersdorf, F.; Praz, F.; Milojevic, M.; Baldus, S.; Bauersachs, J.; Capodanno, D.; Conradi, L.; De Bonis, M.; De Paulis, R.; et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur. Heart J. 2022, 43, 561–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Lantelme, P.; Bisson, A.; Lacour, T.; Herbert, J.; Ivanes, F.; Bourguignon, T.; Angoulvant, D.; Harbaoui, B.; Bonnet, M.; Babuty, D.; et al. Timing of Coronary Revascularization and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An Observational Nationwide Cohort Analysis. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2021, 14, 484–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. van Rosendael, P.J.; van der Kley, F.; Kamperidis, V.; Katsanos, S.; Al Amri, I.; Regeer, M.; Schalij, M.J.; Ajmone Marsan, N.; Bax, J.J.; Delgado, V. Timing of staged percutaneous coronary intervention before transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 2015, 115, 1726–1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Venturi, G.; Pighi, M.; Pesarini, G.; Ferrero, V.; Lunardi, M.; Castaldi, G.; Setti, M.; Benini, A.; Scarsini, R.; Ribichini, F.L. Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing TAVI Compared With Coronary Interventions. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2020, 9, e017194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Yudi, M.B.; Sharma, S.K.; Tang, G.H.L.; Kini, A. Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2018, 71, 1360–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Tang, G.H.L.; Zaid, S.; Fuchs, A.; Yamabe, T.; Yazdchi, F.; Gupta, E.; Ahmad, H.; Kofoed, K.F.; Goldberg, J.B.; Undemir, C.; et al. Alignment of Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Neo-Commissures (ALIGN TAVR): Impact on Final Valve Orientation and Coronary Artery Overlap. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2020, 13, 1030–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Ochiai, T.; Chakravarty, T.; Yoon, S.-H.; Kaewkes, D.; Flint, N.; Patel, V.; Mahani, S.; Tiwana, R.; Sekhon, N.; Nakamura, M.; et al. Coronary Access After TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2020, 13, 693–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Barbanti, M.; Costa, G.; Picci, A.; Criscione, E.; Reddavid, C.; Valvo, R.; Todaro, D.; Deste, W.; Condorelli, A.; Scalia, M.; et al. Coronary Cannulation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The RE-ACCESS Study. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2020, 13, 2542–2555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 11 06256 g001 550
Figure 1. Effects of new-onset left bundle branch block and permanent pacemaker implantation on transcatheter aortic valve replacement outcomes. CV: cardiovascular; HHF: hospitalization for heart failure; LBBB: left bundle branch block; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; PPI: permanent pacemaker implantation.
Figure 1. Effects of new-onset left bundle branch block and permanent pacemaker implantation on transcatheter aortic valve replacement outcomes. CV: cardiovascular; HHF: hospitalization for heart failure; LBBB: left bundle branch block; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; PPI: permanent pacemaker implantation.
Jcm 11 06256 g001
Jcm 11 06256 g002 550
Figure 2. Advantages and disadvantages of performing PCI before or after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; AKI: acute kidney injury.
Figure 2. Advantages and disadvantages of performing PCI before or after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; AKI: acute kidney injury.
Jcm 11 06256 g002
Table
Table 1. Ongoing studies regarding conduction disturbances in the setting of transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
Table 1. Ongoing studies regarding conduction disturbances in the setting of transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
NCT NumberStudy NamePlanned Number of PatientsTarget PopulationDesign and TimingInterventionMain Outcomes
NCT03810820Remote ECG Monitoring of TAVI Patients240Consecutive candidates to outpatient TAVRObservational, prospective, pre and post-procedureMobile cardiac telemetry (m-CARDS) before and after TAVRFeasibility/patients’ adherence. Timeliness of medical assessment. Any new conduction disturbances up to 30 days.
NCT04139616PROMOTE2000All TAVR recipients without prior pacemakerObservational, prospective, post-procedureApplication of a pre-specified algorithm for the management of conduction disturbances post-TAVRImplementation of the algorithm. Incidence of PPI and sudden cardiac death up to 1 year
NCT02659137HESITATE100All TAVR recipients without pre-existent conduction disturbancesObservational, prospective, per and post-procedureEPS during the procedureMeasurement of the HV interval upon occurrence of a LBBB. Location of the LBBB
NCT04454177SMART TAVR100All TAVR patientsObservational, prospective,
post-procedure		Huawei smart watchComposite of death and rehospitalization, rates of conduction disturbances and PPI at 30 days
NCT04489095Conduction Disease After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement200All TAVR recipients without prior pacemakerProspective, observational, per and post-procedureEPS immediately before and after TAVR and the next dayCorrelation between delta values of EPS findings and high-grade conduction disturbances at 1 year
NCT02482844LBBB-TAVI200TAVR recipients with new-onset LBBBObservational, prospective,
post-procedure		EPS with PPI if HV
interval >70 ms and
implantable cardiac
monitoring if <70 ms.		Incidence of HAVB at 1 year
NCT04128384HOM TAVI200All TAVR recipients without prior pacemakerObservational, prospective, per and post-procedureLimited EPS including HV- and AH-intervals measurements pre- and post-TAVRIncidence of HAVB and persistence of new-onset LBBB at 2 years
NCT03303612COME TAVI200TAVR recipients with new-onset LBBBRandomized, prospective, post-procedureGroup 1: EPS-based strategy
Group 2: Clinical follow-up with implantable cardiac monitoring.		Incidence of the composite of cardiovascular hospitalization, syncope or death at 1 year. Incidence of HAVB at 1 year. Cost-effectiveness.
NCT02768064PAMIT120All TAVR recipients without prior pacemakerRandomized, prospective, per and post-procedureExperimental: Flexible screwed temporary pacemaker
Active Comparator: Stiff standard temporary pacemaker		Incidence of pericardial effusion, electrode dislocation, and other temporary pacing complications at 1 week
NCT04482816PHYS-TAVI24TAVR recipients with HAVB pacing indication after TAVR and LVEF > 50%Randomized, prospective, post-procedureExperimental: Physiological (His system) pacing
Active Comparator: Right ventricular pacing		Composite of survival, NYHA improvement and >25% increase in the 6MWT at 1 year. LVEF at 1 year.
6MWT: 6 min walking test; EPS: electrophysiological study; HAVB: high-degree atrioventricular block; LBBB: left bundle branch block; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA: New York heart association; PPI: permanent pacemaker implantation.
Table
Table 2. Management of CAD in patients undergoing TAVR.
Table 2. Management of CAD in patients undergoing TAVR.
ESC GuidelinesAHA Guidelines
DiagnosisCoronary angiography is recommended before TAVR; coronary CTA may be considered in patients with low risk for CAD, or in patients in whom conventional ICA is technically not feasible or associated with increased risk.Contrast-enhanced CTA (in patients with a low pretest probability for CAD) or an invasive coronary angiogram is recommended (Class 1)
TreatmentPCI should be considered in patients undergoing TAVR and coronary artery diameter stenosis > 70% in proximal segments (Class IIa, Level C).Revascularization by PCI before TAVR is reasonable in patients with significant left main or proximal CAD with or without angina (Class 2a).
Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and diffuse CAD unsuitable for revascularization should receive optimal medical therapy and undergo SAVR or TAVR according to individual characteristics.In patients with significant CAD (luminal reduction > 70% diameter, FFR < 0.8, iFR < 0.89) consisting of complex bifurcation left main and/or multivessel CAD with a SYNTAX score > 33, SAVR and CABG are reasonable and preferred over TAVR and PCI (Class 2a).
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and TAVR may be undertaken as combined or staged procedures according to the clinical situation, pattern of CAD, and extent of myocardium at risk
AHA: American Heart Association; CAD: coronary artery disease; CTA: computed tomography angiography; ESC: European Society of Cardiology; ICA: invasive coronary angiography; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; SAVR: surgical aortic valve replacement; TAVR: transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Auffret, V.; Ridard, C.; Salerno, N.; Sorrentino, S. Unmet Needs in TAVR: Conduction Disturbances and Management of Coronary Artery Disease. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 6256. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11216256

AMA Style

Auffret V, Ridard C, Salerno N, Sorrentino S. Unmet Needs in TAVR: Conduction Disturbances and Management of Coronary Artery Disease. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(21):6256. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11216256

Chicago/Turabian Style

Auffret, Vincent, Carine Ridard, Nadia Salerno, and Sabato Sorrentino. 2022. "Unmet Needs in TAVR: Conduction Disturbances and Management of Coronary Artery Disease" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 21: 6256. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11216256

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop