Permanent pacemaker post-valve surgery: Do valve type and position matter? A propensity score matching study
Background and Aim: This study evaluates whether aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) with biological versus mechanical prostheses is independent risk factors for permanent pacemaker (PPM) post-cardiac surgery, alongside traditionally accepted determinants.
Methods: This study focused on single-centre retrospective analysis of 10 years of activity. Case– control 1-to-9 matching was performed for 7 pre-operative and 2 intraoperative confounding factors.
Results: After matching, 617 patients were included for analysis: AVR (79.4% n=490) and MVR (20.6% n=127). PPM was implanted in 3.7% (n=18) and 3.1% (n=4), P=0.8, respectively. A further analysis for PPM rate in biological versus mechanical prostheses did not provide any significant result (P=0.6 AVR and P=0.8 MVR). Post-operative complications in AVR and MVR groups were as follows: Reopening (4.5% vs. 6.3%, P=0.4), myocardial infarction (0.8% vs. 3.2%, P=0.04), pulmonary (32.9% vs. 38.6%, P=0.3), neurological (9.2% vs. 11.8%, P=0.4), renal (9.8% vs. 7.9%, P=0.5), wound (1.4% vs. 2.4%, P=0.5), infective (5.5% vs. 8.7%, P=0.2), and multiple organ failure (4.9% vs. 5.5%, P=0.6). The length of intensive care unit (hours) and hospital stay (days) was 71±163.8 versus 106.5±243.7 (P=0.5) and 14.7±14.7 versus 18.9±20.8 (P=0.01). In-hospital mortality resulted in 4.1% for AVR and 3.9% for MVR, P=0.9.
Conclusion: Valve position and valve type do not affect the likelihood of requiring permanent pacing in patients undergoing isolated aortic and MVR.
Relevance for Patients: A significant proportion of patients undergoing cardiac surgery develop arrhythmias and conduction disturbances postoperatively, often requiring the implantation of a PPM. Determining factors associated with an increase likelihood of permanent pacing would allow the optimization of per- and intra-operative care, with the aim of reducing the incidence of patients requiring post-operative PPM insertion.
[1] Steyers CM 3rd, Khera R, Bhave P. Pacemaker Dependency After Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence. PLoS One 2015;10:e0140340.
[2] Gordon RS, Ivanov J, Cohen G, Ralph-Edwards AL. Permanent Cardiac Pacing After a Cardiac Operation: Predicting the Use of Permanent Pacemakers. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;6:1698-704.
[3] Merin O, Ilan M, Oren A, Fink D, Deeb M, Bitran D, et al. Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Cardiac Surgery: Indications and Long-term Follow-up. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2009;32:7-12.
[4] Turkkan C, Osmanov D, Yildirim E, Ozcan KS, Altay S, Hasdemir H, et al. Bradyarrhythmia Development and Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Cardiac Surgery. North Clin Istanb 2018;5:288-94.
[5] Piantà RM, Ferrari AD, Heck AA, Ferreira DK, da Costa Escobar Piccoli J, Albuquerque LC, et al. Atrioventricular Block in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Perioperative Predictors and Impact on Mortality. Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc 2015;30:164-72.
[6] Onalan O, Crystal A, Lashevsky I, Khalameizer V, Lau C, Goldman B, et al. Determinants of Pacemaker Dependency After Coronary and/or Mitral or Aortic Valve Surgery with Long-term Follow-up. Am J Cardiol 2008;101:203-8.
[7] Schurr UP, Berli J, Berdajs D, Hausler A, Dzemali O, Emmert M, et al. Incidence and Risk Factors for Pacemaker Implantation Following Aortic Valve Replacement. Interact Cardiovas Thorac Surg 2010;11:556-60.
[8] Nardi P, Pellegrino A, Scafuri A, Bellos K, De Propris S, Polisca P, et al. Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement: Incidence, Risk Factors and Surgical Technical Aspects. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2010;11:14-9.
[9] Dawkins S, Hobson AR, Kalra PR, Tang AT, Monro JL, Dawkins KD. Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement: Incidence, Indications, and Predictors. Ann Thorac Surg 2008;85:108112.
[10] Erdogan HB, Kayalar, N, Ardal H, Omeroglu SN, Kirali K, Guler M, et al. Risk Factors or Requirement of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Aortic Valve Replacement. J Card Surg 2006;21:211-5.
[11] Guglielmetti L, Nazif T, Sorabella R, Akkoc D, Kantor A, Gomez A, et al. Bicuspid Aortic Valve Increases the Risk of Permanent Pacemaker Implant Following Aortic Root Replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac
Surg 2016;50:497-503.
[12] Aydin E, Arslan A, Ozkokeli M. Comparison of Superior Septal Approach with Left Atriotomy in Mitral Valve Surgery. Rev Bras Circ Cardiovasc 2014;29:367-73.
[13] Rezahosseini O, Rezaei M, Ahmadi Tafti SH, Jalali A, Bina P, Ghiasi A, et al. Transeptal Approach Versus Left Atrial Approach to Mitral Valve: A Propensity Score Matching Study. J Tehran Heart Cent 2015;10:188-93.
[14] Moskowitz G, Hong KN, Giustino G, Gillinov AM, Ailawadi G, DeRose JJ Jr., et al. Incidence and Risk Factors for Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Mitral or Aortic Valve Surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;21:2607-20.