Adam de Belder

Randomized Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Diabetic Patients: 1-Year Results of the CARDia (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) Trial

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting against coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with diabetes and symptomatic multivessel coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND CABG is the established method of revascularization in patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary disease, but with advances in PCI, there is uncertainty whether CABG remains the preferred method of revascularization. METHODS The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke, and the main secondary outcome included the addition of repeat revascularization to the primary outcome events. A total of 510 diabetic patients with multivessel or complex single-vessel coronary disease from 24 centers were randomized to PCI plus stenting (and routine abciximab) or CABG. The primary comparison used a noninferiority method with the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval (CI) not to exceed 1.3 to declare PCI noninferior. Bare-metal stents were used initially, but a switch to Cypher (sirolimus drug-eluting) stents (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Bridgewater, New Jersey) was made when these became available. RESULTS At 1 year of follow-up, the composite rate of death, MI, and stroke was 10.5% in the CABG group and 13.0% in the PCI group (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.75 to 2.09; p=0.39), all-cause mortality rates were 3.2% and 3.2%, and the rates of death, MI, stroke, or repeat revascularization were 11.3% and 19.3% (HR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.11 to 2.82; p=0.02), respectively. When the patients who underwent CABG were compared with the subset of patients who received drug-eluting stents (69% of patients), the primary outcome rates were 12.4% and 11.6% (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.71; p=0.82), respectively. CONCLUSIONS The CARDia (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) trial is the first randomized trial of coronary revascularization in diabetic patients, but the 1-year results did not show that PCI is noninferior to CABG. However, the CARDia trial did show that multivessel PCI is feasible in patients with diabetes, but longer-term follow-up and data from other trials will be needed to provide a more precise comparison of the efficacy of these 2 revascularization strategies. (The Coronary Artery Revascularisation in Diabetes trial; ISRCTN19872154).

Randomized Trial of Simple Versus Complex Drug-Eluting Stenting for Bifurcation Lesions The British Bifurcation Coronary Study: Old, New, and Evolving Strategies

Background The optimal strategy for treating coronary bifurcation lesions remains a subject of debate. With bare-metal stents, single-stent approaches appear to be superior to systematic 2-stent strategies. Drug-eluting stents, however, have low rates of restenosis and might offer improved outcomes with complex stenting techniques. Methods and Results Patients with significant coronary bifurcation lesions were randomized to either a simple or complex stenting strategy with drug-eluting stents. In the simple strategy, the main vessel was stented, followed by optional kissing balloon dilatation/T-stent. In the complex strategy, both vessels were systematically stented (culotte or crush techniques) with mandatory kissing balloon dilatation. Five hundred patients 64 10 years old were randomized; 77% were male. Eighty-two percent of lesions were true bifurcations ( 50% narrowing in both vessels). In the simplegroup (n 250), 66 patients (26%) had kissing balloons in addition to main-vessel stenting, and 7 (3%) had T stenting. In the complex group (n 250), 89% of culotte (n 75) and 72% of crush (n 169) cases were completed successfully with final kissing balloon inflations. The primary end point (a composite at 9 months of death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel failure) occurred in 8.0% of the simple group versus 15.2% of the complex group (hazard ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 3.47, P 0.009). Myocardial infarction occurred in 3.6% versus 11.2%, respectively (P 0.001), and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 2.0% versus 8.0% (P 0.002), respectively. Procedure duration and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Conclusions When coronary bifurcation lesions are treated, a systematic 2-stent technique results in higher rates of in-hospital and 9-month major adverse cardiovascular events. This difference is largely driven by periprocedural myocardial infarction. Procedure duration is longer, and x-ray dose is higher. The provisional technique should remain the preferred strategy in the majority of cases.Background— The optimal strategy for treating coronary bifurcation lesions remains a subject of debate. With bare-metal stents, single-stent approaches appear to be superior to systematic 2-stent strategies. Drug-eluting stents, however, have low rates of restenosis and might offer improved outcomes with complex stenting techniques. Methods and Results— Patients with significant coronary bifurcation lesions were randomized to either a simple or complex stenting strategy with drug-eluting stents. In the simple strategy, the main vessel was stented, followed by optional kissing balloon dilatation/T-stent. In the complex strategy, both vessels were systematically stented (culotte or crush techniques) with mandatory kissing balloon dilatation. Five hundred patients 64±10 years old were randomized; 77% were male. Eighty-two percent of lesions were true bifurcations (>50% narrowing in both vessels). In the simple group (n=250), 66 patients (26%) had kissing balloons in addition to main-vessel stenting, and 7 (3%) had T stenting. In the complex group (n=250), 89% of culotte (n=75) and 72% of crush (n=169) cases were completed successfully with final kissing balloon inflations. The primary end point (a composite at 9 months of death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel failure) occurred in 8.0% of the simple group versus 15.2% of the complex group (hazard ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 3.47, P=0.009). Myocardial infarction occurred in 3.6% versus 11.2%, respectively (P=0.001), and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 2.0% versus 8.0% (P=0.002), respectively. Procedure duration and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Conclusions— When coronary bifurcation lesions are treated, a systematic 2-stent technique results in higher rates of in-hospital and 9-month major adverse cardiovascular events. This difference is largely driven by periprocedural myocardial infarction. Procedure duration is longer, and x-ray dose is higher. The provisional technique should remain the preferred strategy in the majority of cases. Clinical Trial Registration Information— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 00351260.

Randomised study comparing complex versus simple drug-eluting stent strategies for coronary bifurcations

Background The optimal strategy for treating coronary bifurcation lesions remains a subject of debate. With bare-metal stents, single-stent approaches appear to be superior to systematic 2-stent strategies. Drug-eluting stents, however, have low rates of restenosis and might offer improved outcomes with complex stenting techniques. Methods and Results Patients with significant coronary bifurcation lesions were randomized to either a simple or complex stenting strategy with drug-eluting stents. In the simple strategy, the main vessel was stented, followed by optional kissing balloon dilatation/T-stent. In the complex strategy, both vessels were systematically stented (culotte or crush techniques) with mandatory kissing balloon dilatation. Five hundred patients 64 10 years old were randomized; 77% were male. Eighty-two percent of lesions were true bifurcations ( 50% narrowing in both vessels). In the simplegroup (n 250), 66 patients (26%) had kissing balloons in addition to main-vessel stenting, and 7 (3%) had T stenting. In the complex group (n 250), 89% of culotte (n 75) and 72% of crush (n 169) cases were completed successfully with final kissing balloon inflations. The primary end point (a composite at 9 months of death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel failure) occurred in 8.0% of the simple group versus 15.2% of the complex group (hazard ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 3.47, P 0.009). Myocardial infarction occurred in 3.6% versus 11.2%, respectively (P 0.001), and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 2.0% versus 8.0% (P 0.002), respectively. Procedure duration and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Conclusions When coronary bifurcation lesions are treated, a systematic 2-stent technique results in higher rates of in-hospital and 9-month major adverse cardiovascular events. This difference is largely driven by periprocedural myocardial infarction. Procedure duration is longer, and x-ray dose is higher. The provisional technique should remain the preferred strategy in the majority of cases.Background— The optimal strategy for treating coronary bifurcation lesions remains a subject of debate. With bare-metal stents, single-stent approaches appear to be superior to systematic 2-stent strategies. Drug-eluting stents, however, have low rates of restenosis and might offer improved outcomes with complex stenting techniques. Methods and Results— Patients with significant coronary bifurcation lesions were randomized to either a simple or complex stenting strategy with drug-eluting stents. In the simple strategy, the main vessel was stented, followed by optional kissing balloon dilatation/T-stent. In the complex strategy, both vessels were systematically stented (culotte or crush techniques) with mandatory kissing balloon dilatation. Five hundred patients 64±10 years old were randomized; 77% were male. Eighty-two percent of lesions were true bifurcations (>50% narrowing in both vessels). In the simple group (n=250), 66 patients (26%) had kissing balloons in addition to main-vessel stenting, and 7 (3%) had T stenting. In the complex group (n=250), 89% of culotte (n=75) and 72% of crush (n=169) cases were completed successfully with final kissing balloon inflations. The primary end point (a composite at 9 months of death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel failure) occurred in 8.0% of the simple group versus 15.2% of the complex group (hazard ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 3.47, P=0.009). Myocardial infarction occurred in 3.6% versus 11.2%, respectively (P=0.001), and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 2.0% versus 8.0% (P=0.002), respectively. Procedure duration and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Conclusions— When coronary bifurcation lesions are treated, a systematic 2-stent technique results in higher rates of in-hospital and 9-month major adverse cardiovascular events. This difference is largely driven by periprocedural myocardial infarction. Procedure duration is longer, and x-ray dose is higher. The provisional technique should remain the preferred strategy in the majority of cases. Clinical Trial Registration Information— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 00351260.

Elective intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT Observational studies have previously reported that elective intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) insertion may improve outcomes following high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To date, this assertion has not been tested in a randomized trial. OBJECTIVE To determine whether routine intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation before PCI reduces major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events (MACCE) in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and extensive coronary disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS The Balloon Pump-Assisted Coronary Intervention Study, a prospective, open, multicenter, randomized controlled trial conducted in 17 tertiary referral cardiac centers in the United Kingdom between December 2005 and January 2009. Patients (n = 301) had severe left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction < or = 30%) and extensive coronary disease (Jeopardy Score > or = 8/12); those with contraindications to or class I indications for IABP therapy were excluded. INTERVENTION Elective insertion of IABP before PCI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary end point was MACCE, defined as death, acute myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular event, or further revascularization at hospital discharge (capped at 28 days). Secondary end points included all-cause mortality at 6 months, major procedural complications, bleeding, and access-site complications. RESULTS MACCE at hospital discharge occurred in 15.2% (23/151) of the elective IABP and 16.0% (24/150) of the no planned IABP groups (P = .85; odds ratio [OR], 0.94 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.51-1.76]). All-cause mortality at 6 months was 4.6% and 7.4% in the respective groups (P = .32; OR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.24-1.62]). Fewer major procedural complications occurred with elective IABP insertion compared with no planned IABP use (1.3% vs 10.7%, P < .001; OR, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.01-0.49]). Major or minor bleeding occurred in 19.2% and 11.3% (P = .06; OR, 1.86 [95% CI, 0.93-3.79]) and access-site complications in 3.3% and 0% (P = .06) of the elective and no planned IABP groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Elective IABP insertion did not reduce the incidence of MACCE following PCI. These results do not support a strategy of routine IABP placement before PCI in all patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and extensive coronary disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN40553718; clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00910481.

Simple or Complex Stenting for Bifurcation Coronary Lesions A Patient-Level Pooled-Analysis of the Nordic Bifurcation Study and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study

Background— Controversy persists regarding the correct strategy for bifurcation lesions. Therefore, we combined the patient-level data from 2 large trials with similar methodology: the NORDIC Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study (BBC ONE). Methods and Results— Both randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) versus complex techniques, using drug-eluting stents. In the simple group (n=457), 129 patients had final kissing balloon dilatation in addition to main vessel stenting, and 16 had T-stenting. In the complex group (n=456), 272 underwent crush, 118 culotte, and 59 T-stenting techniques. A composite end point at 9 months of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 10.1% of the simple versus 17.3% of the complex group (hazard ratio 1.84 [95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.66], P =0.001). Procedure duration, contrast, and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Subgroup analysis revealed similar composite end point results for true bifurcations (n=657, simple 9.2% versus complex 17.3%; hazard ratio 1.90 [95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.94], P =0.004), wide-angled bifurcations >60 to 70° (n=217, simple 9.6% versus complex 15.7%; hazard ratio 1.67 [ 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 3.62], P =0.186), large (≥2.75 mm) diameter side branches (n=281, simple 10.4% versus complex 20.7%; hazard ratio 2.42 [ 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.80], P =0.011), longer length (>5 mm) ostial side branch lesions (n=464, simple 12.1% versus complex 19.1%; hazard ratio 1.71 [95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.77], P =0.029), or equivalent sized vessels (side branch <0.25 mm smaller than main vessel) (n=108, simple 12.0% versus complex 15.5%; hazard ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 0.48 to 3.70], P =0.57). Conclusions— For bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach is superior to systematic dual stenting techniques in terms of safety and efficacy. A complex approach does not appear to be beneficial in more anatomically complicated lesions. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: . Unique identifier: NCT 00376571 and NCT 00351260.Background—Controversy persists regarding the correct strategy for bifurcation lesions. Therefore, we combined the patient-level data from 2 large trials with similar methodology: the NORDIC Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study (BBC ONE). Methods and Results—Both randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) versus complex techniques, using drug-eluting stents. In the simple group (n=457), 129 patients had final kissing balloon dilatation in addition to main vessel stenting, and 16 had T-stenting. In the complex group (n=456), 272 underwent crush, 118 culotte, and 59 T-stenting techniques. A composite end point at 9 months of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 10.1% of the simple versus 17.3% of the complex group (hazard ratio 1.84 [95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.66], P=0.001). Procedure duration, contrast, and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Subgroup analysis revealed similar composite end point results for true bifurcations (n=657, simple 9.2% versus complex 17.3%; hazard ratio 1.90 [95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.94], P=0.004), wide-angled bifurcations >60 to 70° (n=217, simple 9.6% versus complex 15.7%; hazard ratio 1.67 [ 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 3.62], P=0.186), large (≥2.75 mm) diameter side branches (n=281, simple 10.4% versus complex 20.7%; hazard ratio 2.42 [ 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.80], P=0.011), longer length (>5 mm) ostial side branch lesions (n=464, simple 12.1% versus complex 19.1%; hazard ratio 1.71 [95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.77], P=0.029), or equivalent sized vessels (side branch <0.25 mm smaller than main vessel) (n=108, simple 12.0% versus complex 15.5%; hazard ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 0.48 to 3.70], P=0.57). Conclusions—For bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach is superior to systematic dual stenting techniques in terms of safety and efficacy. A complex approach does not appear to be beneficial in more anatomically complicated lesions. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 00376571 and NCT 00351260.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for stenosed and regurgitant aortic valve bioprostheses CoreValve for failed bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is increasingly being used to treat severe aortic stenosis in patients with high operative risk. In an aging population the incidence of aortic stenosis is rising, and increasing numbers of elderly patients are undergoing aortic valve replacement with bioprosthetic valves. Therefore, there is a corresponding increase in prosthetic degeneration. This presents cardiologists with a cohort of patients for whom the risk of re-do aortic valve surgery is prohibitive. We present the first series of such patients with degenerative bioprosthetic stenosis or regurgitation successfully treated with CoreValve (Medtronic, Luxembourg) implantation.

Simple or Complex Stenting for Bifurcation Coronary LesionsClinical Perspective

Background— Controversy persists regarding the correct strategy for bifurcation lesions. Therefore, we combined the patient-level data from 2 large trials with similar methodology: the NORDIC Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study (BBC ONE). Methods and Results— Both randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) versus complex techniques, using drug-eluting stents. In the simple group (n=457), 129 patients had final kissing balloon dilatation in addition to main vessel stenting, and 16 had T-stenting. In the complex group (n=456), 272 underwent crush, 118 culotte, and 59 T-stenting techniques. A composite end point at 9 months of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 10.1% of the simple versus 17.3% of the complex group (hazard ratio 1.84 [95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.66], P =0.001). Procedure duration, contrast, and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Subgroup analysis revealed similar composite end point results for true bifurcations (n=657, simple 9.2% versus complex 17.3%; hazard ratio 1.90 [95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.94], P =0.004), wide-angled bifurcations >60 to 70° (n=217, simple 9.6% versus complex 15.7%; hazard ratio 1.67 [ 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 3.62], P =0.186), large (≥2.75 mm) diameter side branches (n=281, simple 10.4% versus complex 20.7%; hazard ratio 2.42 [ 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.80], P =0.011), longer length (>5 mm) ostial side branch lesions (n=464, simple 12.1% versus complex 19.1%; hazard ratio 1.71 [95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.77], P =0.029), or equivalent sized vessels (side branch <0.25 mm smaller than main vessel) (n=108, simple 12.0% versus complex 15.5%; hazard ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 0.48 to 3.70], P =0.57). Conclusions— For bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach is superior to systematic dual stenting techniques in terms of safety and efficacy. A complex approach does not appear to be beneficial in more anatomically complicated lesions. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: . Unique identifier: NCT 00376571 and NCT 00351260.Background—Controversy persists regarding the correct strategy for bifurcation lesions. Therefore, we combined the patient-level data from 2 large trials with similar methodology: the NORDIC Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study (BBC ONE). Methods and Results—Both randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) versus complex techniques, using drug-eluting stents. In the simple group (n=457), 129 patients had final kissing balloon dilatation in addition to main vessel stenting, and 16 had T-stenting. In the complex group (n=456), 272 underwent crush, 118 culotte, and 59 T-stenting techniques. A composite end point at 9 months of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 10.1% of the simple versus 17.3% of the complex group (hazard ratio 1.84 [95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.66], P=0.001). Procedure duration, contrast, and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Subgroup analysis revealed similar composite end point results for true bifurcations (n=657, simple 9.2% versus complex 17.3%; hazard ratio 1.90 [95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.94], P=0.004), wide-angled bifurcations >60 to 70° (n=217, simple 9.6% versus complex 15.7%; hazard ratio 1.67 [ 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 3.62], P=0.186), large (≥2.75 mm) diameter side branches (n=281, simple 10.4% versus complex 20.7%; hazard ratio 2.42 [ 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.80], P=0.011), longer length (>5 mm) ostial side branch lesions (n=464, simple 12.1% versus complex 19.1%; hazard ratio 1.71 [95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.77], P=0.029), or equivalent sized vessels (side branch <0.25 mm smaller than main vessel) (n=108, simple 12.0% versus complex 15.5%; hazard ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 0.48 to 3.70], P=0.57). Conclusions—For bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach is superior to systematic dual stenting techniques in terms of safety and efficacy. A complex approach does not appear to be beneficial in more anatomically complicated lesions. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 00376571 and NCT 00351260.

European expert consensus on rotational atherectomy.

The interest in rotational atherectomy (RA) has increased over the past decade as a consequence of more complex and calcified coronary stenoses being attempted with percutaneous coronary interventions. Yet adoption of RA is hampered by several factors: amongst others, by the lack of a standardised protocol. This European expert consensus document stems from the awareness of the large heterogeneity in the protocols adopted to perform rotational atherectomy. The objective of the present document is to provide some points of consensus among highly experienced operators on the most controversial steps of RA in an attempt to build the basis of a standardised and universally accepted protocol.

A Prospective Randomized Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Octogenarians: The XIMA Trial (Xience or Vision Stents for the Management of Angina in the Elderly)

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to determine whether drug-eluting stents (DES) are superior to bare-metal stents (BMS) in octogenarian patients with angina. BACKGROUND Patients ≥80 years of age frequently have complex coronary disease warranting DES but have a higher risk of bleeding from prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy. METHODS This multicenter randomized trial was conducted in 22 centers in the United Kingdom and Spain. Patients ≥80 years of age underwent stent placement for angina. The primary endpoint was a 1-year composite of death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, target vessel revascularization, or major hemorrhage. RESULTS In total, 800 patients (83.5 ± 3.2 years of age) were randomized to BMS (n = 401) or DES (n = 399) for treatment of stable angina (32%) or acute coronary syndrome (68%). Procedural success did not differ between groups (97.7% for BMS vs. 95.4% for DES; p = 0.07). Thirty-eight percent of patients had ≥2-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention, and 66% underwent complete revascularization. Patients who received BMS had shorter stent implants (24.0 ± 13.4 mm vs. 26.6 ± 14.3 mm; p = 0.01). Rates of dual antiplatelet therapy at 1 year were 32.2% for patients in the BMS group and 94.0% for patients in the DES group. The primary endpoint occurred in 18.7% of patients in the BMS group versus 14.3% of patients in the DES group (p = 0.09). There was no difference in death (7.2% vs. 8.5%; p = 0.50), major hemorrhage (1.7% vs. 2.3%; p = 0.61), or cerebrovascular accident (1.2% vs. 1.5%; p = 0.77). Myocardial infarction (8.7% vs. 4.3%; p = 0.01) and target vessel revascularization (7.0% vs. 2.0%; p = 0.001) occurred more often in patients in the BMS group. CONCLUSIONS BMS and DES offer good clinical outcomes in this age group. DES were associated with a lower incidence of myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization without increased incidence of major hemorrhage. (Xience or Vision Stent-Management of Angina in the Elderly [XIMA]; ISRCTN92243650).

Predictors for permanent pacing after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a new treatment strategy for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis who are high risk for traditional surgical aortic valve replacement. The incidence of conduction system abnormalities after the procedure is significant. We examine our experience with CoreValve TAVI focusing on electrocardiographic changes found pre‐, peri‐, and postintervention. Methods: During 2007–08 we undertook 33 cases utilizing the CoreValve revalving system (CoreValve, Paris, France). Assessment of ECGs, with particular reference to the PR and QRS duration, was made daily during each patients hospital stay. Results: Patients were aged 81.7 ± 6.7 years and the majority were male (57%). Baseline cardiac rhythm was sinus (n = 28, 80%); atrial fibrillation (n = 6, 18%) or ventricular paced (n = 1, 3%). Following CoreValve implantation, prolongation of both the PR interval and QRS duration was seen. Preprocedural PR interval was 193.5 ± 38.7 ms and QRS interval preprocedure was 115.3 ± 24.8 ms. PR interval increased after the procedure by 23.5 ± 23.9 ms and peaked at day 4 with a mean increase of 66.1 ± 72.7 ms. QRS duration increased by a mean of 30.6 ± 26.1 ms postprocedure and remained stable thereafter during the remaining hospital stay. The need for PPM insertion was partially predicted by pre‐procedural QRS morphology: patients with pre‐existing right bundle branch block had an 83% chance of requiring a permanent pacemaker (P < 0.01 OR 28 95%CI 2.4–326.7); those with LBBB had a 33% chance of requiring a pacemaker (P = ns OR 2.3 95%CI 0.2–34.9). Patients undergoing the procedure later in our experience showed a decreased incidence of pacing (P = 0.046 OR 0.36 95% CI 0.07–1.82). Pre‐procedural annulus measurements also predicted the requirement for pacing with larger annulus sizes more likely to require a pacemaker (P = 0.044 OR 3.3 95% CI 0.63–17.6). The requirement for pacing was not predicted by age, baseline PR interval or gender. Requirement for pacing overall was 32% with an additional 13% having had a pacemaker inserted prior to the TAVI. Conclusion: CoreValve insertion was associated with an increase in PR interval and QRS duration. PR interval continued to rise during admission, peaking on Day 4 post procedure, making a prolonged period of monitoring highly desirable. There was a significant requirement for permanent pacing, which was predicted by pre‐procedural QRS morphology, annulus measurement, and the learning curve.