Emily Tat, Tamim Nazif, Isaac George, Robin Le Ruz, Rebecca T Hahn, Angelo Biviano, Elaine Y Wan, Susheel K Kodali, Hirad Yarmohammadi, Deepak Saluja
{"title":"Alternative Pacing Strategies Following Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Interventions: Procedural Challenges and Lessons Learned.","authors":"Emily Tat, Tamim Nazif, Isaac George, Robin Le Ruz, Rebecca T Hahn, Angelo Biviano, Elaine Y Wan, Susheel K Kodali, Hirad Yarmohammadi, Deepak Saluja","doi":"10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.10.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Decision making regarding new pacemaker implantation following transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention (TTVI), including transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) or transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR), is complex due to anatomic and TTVI-related challenges.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the feasibility of non-transvalvular pacing strategies including coronary sinus (CS) or leadless pacemaker (LP) placement, following TTVI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive patients undergoing TTVI at a single institution were retrospectively studied for new pacemaker indications and pacing strategy. Procedural challenges and outcomes associated with non-transvalvular pacemaker implantation were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 137 patients who underwent TTVI (69 TTVR, 68 TEER) at a single center, 34 (25%) patients were excluded for pre-existing pacemaker, and 15/103 (15%) patients subsequently developed an indication for pacing following TEER (n=5/53, 9%) or TTVR (n = 10/50, 20%). An alternative pacing strategy was attempted after TEER and TTVR. After TEER (n=5), CS lead placement was 50% successful (2/4) and one LP attempt was unsuccessful (0/1). After TTVR (n=10), CS lead placement was 75% successful (6/8) and LP placement was 100% successful (2/2) on initial attempt. CS lead placement was limited by CS anatomy, whereas LP placement was limited by TTVR interaction. A transvenous pacemaker was successfully placed if needed. No pacemaker device-related adverse event occurred in any patient peri-procedurally or at one year follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Alternative non-transvalvular pacing strategies may be feasible and safe in patients who require pacing following TTVI. Pre-procedural planning with a multidisciplinary approach can help optimize procedural success. Further studies and longer-term follow-up are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":12886,"journal":{"name":"Heart rhythm","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart rhythm","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.10.013","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Decision making regarding new pacemaker implantation following transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention (TTVI), including transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) or transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR), is complex due to anatomic and TTVI-related challenges.
Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of non-transvalvular pacing strategies including coronary sinus (CS) or leadless pacemaker (LP) placement, following TTVI.
Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing TTVI at a single institution were retrospectively studied for new pacemaker indications and pacing strategy. Procedural challenges and outcomes associated with non-transvalvular pacemaker implantation were assessed.
Results: Among 137 patients who underwent TTVI (69 TTVR, 68 TEER) at a single center, 34 (25%) patients were excluded for pre-existing pacemaker, and 15/103 (15%) patients subsequently developed an indication for pacing following TEER (n=5/53, 9%) or TTVR (n = 10/50, 20%). An alternative pacing strategy was attempted after TEER and TTVR. After TEER (n=5), CS lead placement was 50% successful (2/4) and one LP attempt was unsuccessful (0/1). After TTVR (n=10), CS lead placement was 75% successful (6/8) and LP placement was 100% successful (2/2) on initial attempt. CS lead placement was limited by CS anatomy, whereas LP placement was limited by TTVR interaction. A transvenous pacemaker was successfully placed if needed. No pacemaker device-related adverse event occurred in any patient peri-procedurally or at one year follow-up.
Conclusion: Alternative non-transvalvular pacing strategies may be feasible and safe in patients who require pacing following TTVI. Pre-procedural planning with a multidisciplinary approach can help optimize procedural success. Further studies and longer-term follow-up are warranted.
期刊介绍:
HeartRhythm, the official Journal of the Heart Rhythm Society and the Cardiac Electrophysiology Society, is a unique journal for fundamental discovery and clinical applicability.
HeartRhythm integrates the entire cardiac electrophysiology (EP) community from basic and clinical academic researchers, private practitioners, engineers, allied professionals, industry, and trainees, all of whom are vital and interdependent members of our EP community.
The Heart Rhythm Society is the international leader in science, education, and advocacy for cardiac arrhythmia professionals and patients, and the primary information resource on heart rhythm disorders. Its mission is to improve the care of patients by promoting research, education, and optimal health care policies and standards.