Incidence and Risk Factors for Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Tricuspid Valve Repair

Annals of thoracic surgery short reports Pub Date : 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.atssr.2024.08.003

Jae Woong Choi MD, PhD , Muath Bishawi MD, PhD , Carmelo Milano MD , Jeffrey Gaca MD , Keith Carr BS , Andrew Wang MD , Donald D. Glower MD

{"title":"Incidence and Risk Factors for Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Tricuspid Valve Repair","authors":"Jae Woong Choi MD, PhD , Muath Bishawi MD, PhD , Carmelo Milano MD , Jeffrey Gaca MD , Keith Carr BS , Andrew Wang MD , Donald D. Glower MD","doi":"10.1016/j.atssr.2024.08.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Although the likelihood of needing a permanent pacemaker (PPM) after tricuspid valve (TV) repair has been thought to be low compared with TV replacement, the incidence and determinants are controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for PPM implantation after TV repair.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A total of 1237 consecutive patients undergoing TV repair from 1997 to 2019 were reviewed using a prospectively maintained database, and 1058 patients were enrolled.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Incidence of PPM implantation was 10.3% (n = 109). Median time to PPM implantation was 7 (range, 6-9) days. Indications for PPM implantation were heart block (n = 62, 56.9%), junctional or sinus bradycardia (n = 21, 19.3%), and ventricular arrhythmia (n = 17, 15.6%). Likelihood of PPM varied with concurrent procedures: left ventricular assist device (3.4%), mitral repair (11.2%), mitral valve replacement (13.7%), aortic and mitral valve replacement (19.2%), and isolated tricuspid repair (6.5%). Older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.020; 95% CI, 1.003-1.036), prior mediastinal radiation (OR, 4.106; 95% CI, 1.598-10.554), and concomitant mitral and aortic valve replacement (OR, 1.963; 95% CI, 1.046-3.683) were risk factors, and concomitant left ventricular assist device implantation (OR, 0.325; 95% CI, 0.139-0.759) was a protective factor for PPM implantation. PPM implantation did not affect the early outcomes, overall survival (<em>P</em> =.287), or cumulative incidence of recurrent moderate or greater tricuspid regurgitation (<em>P</em> =.890) or TV reoperation (<em>P</em> =.602).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The likelihood of PPM implantation after TV repair is relatively high, but PPM implantation does not affect the early and long-term clinical outcomes. Older age, prior mediastinal radiation, and concomitant mitral and aortic valve replacement are risk factors, and concomitant left ventricular assist device implantation is a protective factor for PPM implantation after TV repair.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72234,"journal":{"name":"Annals of thoracic surgery short reports","volume":"3 1","pages":"Pages 37-41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of thoracic surgery short reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772993124003516","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Although the likelihood of needing a permanent pacemaker (PPM) after tricuspid valve (TV) repair has been thought to be low compared with TV replacement, the incidence and determinants are controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for PPM implantation after TV repair.

Methods

A total of 1237 consecutive patients undergoing TV repair from 1997 to 2019 were reviewed using a prospectively maintained database, and 1058 patients were enrolled.

Results

Incidence of PPM implantation was 10.3% (n = 109). Median time to PPM implantation was 7 (range, 6-9) days. Indications for PPM implantation were heart block (n = 62, 56.9%), junctional or sinus bradycardia (n = 21, 19.3%), and ventricular arrhythmia (n = 17, 15.6%). Likelihood of PPM varied with concurrent procedures: left ventricular assist device (3.4%), mitral repair (11.2%), mitral valve replacement (13.7%), aortic and mitral valve replacement (19.2%), and isolated tricuspid repair (6.5%). Older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.020; 95% CI, 1.003-1.036), prior mediastinal radiation (OR, 4.106; 95% CI, 1.598-10.554), and concomitant mitral and aortic valve replacement (OR, 1.963; 95% CI, 1.046-3.683) were risk factors, and concomitant left ventricular assist device implantation (OR, 0.325; 95% CI, 0.139-0.759) was a protective factor for PPM implantation. PPM implantation did not affect the early outcomes, overall survival (P =.287), or cumulative incidence of recurrent moderate or greater tricuspid regurgitation (P =.890) or TV reoperation (P =.602).

Conclusions

The likelihood of PPM implantation after TV repair is relatively high, but PPM implantation does not affect the early and long-term clinical outcomes. Older age, prior mediastinal radiation, and concomitant mitral and aortic valve replacement are risk factors, and concomitant left ventricular assist device implantation is a protective factor for PPM implantation after TV repair.

查看原文