not-yet-known
not-yet-known
not-yet-known
unknown
”Decoding the H-V Interval: Unraveling Its Reliability as a Pacemaker
Indicator Post-TAVI”
- Ammar Ahmed,
- Christopher Bradley,
- Medhat Chowdhury,
- Phanindra Antharam,
- Harini Lakshman
Ammar Ahmed
Ascension Providence Hospital Southfield Campus
Author ProfileChristopher Bradley
Ascension Providence Hospital Southfield Campus
Author ProfileMedhat Chowdhury
Ascension Providence Hospital Southfield Campus
Author ProfilePhanindra Antharam
Ascension Providence Hospital Southfield Campus
Author ProfileHarini Lakshman
Ascension Providence Hospital Southfield Campus
Corresponding Author:dr.harinianekal07@gmail.com
Author ProfileAbstract
not-yet-known
not-yet-known
not-yet-known
unknown
Introduction: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is
a treatment for severe aortic stenosis in high-risk and
intermediate-risk patients unsuitable for surgery. Despite its minimally
invasive nature, TAVI often leads to complications, including de novo
left bundle branch block (LBBB), which increases the risk of complete
atrioventricular (AV) block, heart failure, and sudden cardiac death.
Current guidelines provide ambiguous recommendations for permanent
pacemaker (PPM) implantation for patients with LBBB post-TAVI. This
report aims to reevaluate the HV interval cutoff and explore alternative
predictors for PPM decisions in patients with LBBB after TAVI.
Case Description: A 79-year-old female with non-obstructive
coronary artery disease and severe symptomatic aortic stenosis underwent
TAVI with a 26 mm Edwards Resilia balloon-expandable valve. Pre-TAVI
electrocardiography (ECG) showed sinus rhythm with a QRS duration of 98
ms. Post-TAVI, the patient developed a first-degree AV delay and
new-onset LBBB. An electrophysiological study (EPS) performed 48 hours
post-TAVI showed an HV interval of 61 ms. Despite this, the patient
developed symptomatic complete heart block hours later, necessitating
urgent PPM implantation. Discussion: This case questions the
reliability of the HV interval as a standalone marker for pacemaker
decisions in LBBB post-TAVI patients. The occurrence of complete heart
block despite an HV interval below predictive values raises concerns
about this parameter’s accuracy. Alternative predictors such as the
delta HV interval and AH interval may provide better insights. Delayed
EPS assessment might be more appropriate. Conclusion: Managing
LBBB after TAVI is complex. Reevaluation of HV interval reliability and
larger trials to establish accurate predictors and refine PPM
implantation criteria post-TAVI are needed to improve patient outcomes.