Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Wiley, Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 7(33), p. 1617-1627, 2022

DOI: 10.1111/jce.15565

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Evolution of tricuspid valve regurgitation after implantation of a leadless pacemaker: A single center experience, systematic review, and meta‐analysis

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionConventional transvenous pacemaker leads may interfere with the tricuspid valve leaflets, tendinous chords, and papillary muscles, resulting in significant tricuspid valve regurgitation (TR). Leadless pacemakers (LLPMs) theoretically cause less mechanical interference with the tricuspid valve apparatus. However, data on TR after LLPM implantation are sparse and conflicting. Our goal was to investigate the prevalence of significant TR before and after LLPM implantation.MethodsPatients who received a leadless LLPM (Micra™ TPS, Medtronic) between May 2016 and May 2021 at our center were included in this observational study if they had at least a pre‐ and postinterventional echocardiogram (TTE). The evolution of TR severity was assessed. Following a systematic literature review on TR evolution after implantation of a LLPM, data were pooled in a random‐effects meta‐analysis.ResultsWe included 69 patients (median age 78 years [interquartile range (IQR) 72–84 years], 26% women). Follow‐up duration between baseline and follow‐up TTE was 11.4 months (IQR 3.5–20.1 months). At follow‐up, overall TR severity was not different compared to baseline (p = .49). Six patients (9%) had new significant TR during follow‐up after LLPM implantation, whereas TR severity improved in seven patients (10%). In the systematic review, we identified seven additional articles that investigated the prevalence of significant TR after LLPM implantation. The meta‐analysis based on 297 patients failed to show a difference in significant TR before and after LLPM implantation (risk ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.97–1.53, p = .11).ConclusionTo date, there is no substantial evidence for a significant change in TR after implantation of a LLPM.