Intraprocedural high‐degree atrioventricular block or complete heart block in transcatheter aortic valve replacement recipients with no prior intraventricular conduction disturbances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conduction disturbances are the most frequent complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, no data exists regarding the outcomes of intraprocedural high-degree atrioventricular block (HAVB) or complete heart block (CHB) in patients without previous conduction disturbances. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of intraprocedural-HAVB/CHB in patients without previous intraventricular conduction disturbances. METHODS: The occurrence of intraprocedural-HAVB/CHB was assessed in 676 consecutive patients undergoing TAVR, and two groups were established according to its duration: persistent-HAVB/CHB (PHAVB/CHB) and transient-HAVB/CHB (THAVB/CHB), not present at the end of the procedure. RESULTS: Intraprocedural-HAVB/CHB occurred in 50 patients (7.4%), being persistent in 32 (64.0%), and transient in 18 (36.0%). The use of Medtronic Corevalve Revalving System (MCRS) and a greater oversizing of the valve increased the risk of intraprocedural-HAVB/CHB (p < 0.001). Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was more frequent in the PHAVB/CHB than in the THAVB/CHB group (96.9% vs. 33.3%; p < 0.001). At 1-month follow-up, the PHAVB/CHB group showed a 98% ventricular pacing rate (VPR) compared to 16% in the THAVB/CHB group (p < 0.001), and similar VPR were observed at 1-year follow-up (98% vs. 37%, p < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) decreased at 1-year follow-up in patients with PHAVB/CHB (-3.9 ± 1.8%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In TAVR recipients with no prior intraventricular conduction disturbances, intraprocedural-HAVB/CHB occurred in 7.4% of cases. HAVB/CHB was persistent in most cases and determined a high rate of PPI post-TAVR. Very high VPR at 1- and 12-month follow-up were observed, which in turn was associated with a negative effect on LVEF. These results support early PPI and close follow-up in patients developing intraprocedural-PHAVB/CHB.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".