Contemporary implantation protocols enable markedly lower pacemaker rate for selfexpandable TAVR

Abstract Background Even in a low-risk cohort, the Evolut low-risk trial has reported a still rather high pacemaker implantation rate over 20%. In the recent years, contemporary implantation protocols have been introduced aiming on a higher implantation position. Purpose Data on a reduction of pacemaker rate in contemporary implantation practice is still limited. Methods We retrospectively analyzed baseline-characteristics and pacemaker-implantation rates after TAVR in patients being treated with a Medtronic Evolut Prosthesis for aortic valve stenosis in our center in the years 2018 (conventional implantation in 3-cusp view) vs. 2023 (contemporary implantation in cusp overlap technique). Results 160 Patients were retrospectively included. We found out, that contemporary implantation lead to a marked reduction of pacemaker rate (8.7 vs. 20.9%, p=0.047; HR 0.36[IQR 0.14-0.96; p=0.041]). While most baseline-parameters including age (83.5 (79.2/87.3) vs. 82.8 (79.4/86.2), p=0.654), LVEF (55.0 (54.3/57.8) vs. 55.0 (51.0/59.0), p=0.992) and overall risk score (Euroscore II 3.5 (2.5/4.7) vs. 3.6 (2.3/5.7), p= 0.726) had no relevant impact on pacemaker rate, female patients were less prone to receive a pacemaker (8.6% vs. 21.3%, p=0.030). Of all conduction disturbances before procedure, a pre-existing RBBB was strongly associated with a relevantly higher pacemaker rate (50.0% vs. 11.3% (p<0.001), HR 7.88 (IQR 2.73/22.74; p<0.001)). Furthermore, more severe leaflet calcification (p=0.049), a deeper implantation depth (6.0 (5.0/6.5) vs. 5.0 (4.0/60.), p=0.042), larger annular dimensions (perimeter 79.7 (75.2/87.7) 76.8 (71.9/80.7), vs. p=0.047) and prostheses sizes (Evolut 34 vs. smaller sizes 28.1 vs. 12.5%, p=0.053), higher BNP (547 (314/1488) vs. 396 (208/856)), p=0.039 and body weight (78.0 (71.3/90.0) vs. 73.0 (63.5/84.5), p=0.030) were attributed to a higher pacemaker rate. Conclusions In our retrospective database we demonstrated that a contemporary implantation protocol enabling higher implantation position leads to a significant reduction in pacemaker rate, even in the high-risk collective of patients with pre-existing RBBB (58.3 vs. 15.2%, p=0.002 compared to 33.3 vs. 6.3%, p=0.081).