Yield of the electrophysiological study in patients with new-onset left bundle branch block after transcathether aortic valve replacement: The PR interval matters.

Details

Ressource 1Download: article.pdf (725.53 [Ko])
State: Public
Version: Final published version
License: Not specified
Serval ID
serval:BIB_BC29EB9F987B
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Yield of the electrophysiological study in patients with new-onset left bundle branch block after transcathether aortic valve replacement: The PR interval matters.
Journal
Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine
Author(s)
Pagnoni M., Meier D., Luca A., Fournier S., Aminfar F., Gentil P., Haddad C., Domenichini G., Lebloa M., Herrera-Siklody C., Cook S., Goy J.J., Roguelov C., Girod G., Rubimbura V., Dupré M., Eeckhout E., Pruvot E., Muller O., Pascale P.
ISSN
2297-055X (Print)
ISSN-L
2297-055X
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2022
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
9
Pages
910693
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article
Publication Status: epublish
Abstract
Studies suggest that performing an electrophysiological study (EPS) may be useful to identify patients with new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) post-TAVR at risk of atrioventricular block. However, tools to optimize the yield of such strategy are needed. We therefore aimed to investigate whether 12-lead ECG changes post-TAVR may help identify patients with abnormal EPS findings.
Consecutive patients with new-onset LBBB post-TAVR who underwent EPS were included. PR and QRS intervals were measured on 12-lead ECG pre-TAVR and during EPS. Abnormal EPS was defined as an HV interval > 55 ms.
Among 61 patients, 28 (46%) had an HV interval > 55 ms after TAVR. Post-TAVR PR interval and ΔPR (PR-post-pre-TAVR) were significantly longer in patients with prolonged HV (PR: 188 ± 38 vs. 228 ± 34 ms, p < 0.001, ΔPR: 10 ± 30 vs. 34 ± 23 ms, p = 0.001), while no difference was found in QRS duration. PR and ΔPR intervals both effectively discriminated patients with HV > 55 ms (AUC = 0.804 and 0.769, respectively; p < 0.001). A PR > 200 ms identified patients with abnormal EPS results with a sensitivity of 89% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 88%. ΔPR ≥ 20 ms alone provided a somewhat lower sensitivity (64%) but combining both criteria (i.e., PR > 200 ms or ΔPR ≥ 20 ms) identified almost every patients with abnormal HV (sensitivity = 96%, NPV = 95%). Selecting EPS candidate based on both criteria would avoid 1/3 of exams.
PR interval assessment may be useful to select patients with new-onset LBBB after TAVR who may benefit most from an EPS. In patients with PR ≤ 200 ms and ΔPR < 20 ms the likelihood of abnormal EPS is very low independently of QRS changes.
Keywords
Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, HV interval, PR interval, atrioventricular block (AV block), electrophysiological study (EPS), trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
26/09/2022 13:34
Last modification date
03/03/2024 18:25
Usage data