Permanent Pacemaker Use in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Real World Experience from the National Inpatient Sample

Anand Muthu Krishnan, S. Kadavath, Gurukripa N. Kowlgi, Akshay Goel, Fangcheng Wu, A. Jha, Daniel D. Correa de Sa, Rony N. Lahoud
{"title":"Permanent Pacemaker Use in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Real World Experience from the National Inpatient Sample","authors":"Anand Muthu Krishnan, S. Kadavath, Gurukripa N. Kowlgi, Akshay Goel, Fangcheng Wu, A. Jha, Daniel D. Correa de Sa, Rony N. Lahoud","doi":"10.38179/ijcr.v3i1.219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) is associated with conduction abnormalities requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI). Data regarding predictors for PPMI following TAVR is scarce.\nMethods: This is a retrospective study utilizing the 2017 National In-Patient Sample (NIS). Patients who underwent TAVR and PPMI during the same admission were identified using appropriate ICD-10 codes, as were patients with left bundle branch (LBBB), right bundle branch (RBBB), and first-degree AV delay (AVB). Patients were split into two groups based on PPMI. The groups were compared using univariate and multivariate analyses after adjusting for age, gender, race, comorbidities, insurance status, and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI). Secondary outcomes included factors influencing length of stay (LOS) and total charges incurred.\nResults: In 2017, 54,175 (57.6% males) patients underwent TAVR. There were 8,067 patients with LBBB, 2,402 with RBBB, and 2,905 with AVB at baseline. A 4170 total of patients (55.2% males) required PPMI. Patients requiring PPMI were older (80.5 vs 79.6 years, p=0.001). On multivariate analyses, baseline RBBB, LBBB, hypertension (HTN), CCI 2, and CCI >/=3 predicted PPMI (aOR 4.82, p<0.001; aOR 1.63, p<0.001; aOR 1.21, p=0.013, aOR 1.53, p=0.022 and aOR 1.46, p=0.031 respectively). On multivariate analyses, patients who underwent PPMI had significantly higher LOS (aOR 2.18, p<0.001) and incurred higher total charges (USD 278,000 vs USD 204,920; p<0.001).\nConclusion: In this cohort, RBBB, LBBB, HTN, and increased CCI predicted PPMI after TAVR. Further studies are required to corroborate our findings.","PeriodicalId":73437,"journal":{"name":"International journal of clinical research & trials","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of clinical research & trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38179/ijcr.v3i1.219","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: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) is associated with conduction abnormalities requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI). Data regarding predictors for PPMI following TAVR is scarce. Methods: This is a retrospective study utilizing the 2017 National In-Patient Sample (NIS). Patients who underwent TAVR and PPMI during the same admission were identified using appropriate ICD-10 codes, as were patients with left bundle branch (LBBB), right bundle branch (RBBB), and first-degree AV delay (AVB). Patients were split into two groups based on PPMI. The groups were compared using univariate and multivariate analyses after adjusting for age, gender, race, comorbidities, insurance status, and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI). Secondary outcomes included factors influencing length of stay (LOS) and total charges incurred. Results: In 2017, 54,175 (57.6% males) patients underwent TAVR. There were 8,067 patients with LBBB, 2,402 with RBBB, and 2,905 with AVB at baseline. A 4170 total of patients (55.2% males) required PPMI. Patients requiring PPMI were older (80.5 vs 79.6 years, p=0.001). On multivariate analyses, baseline RBBB, LBBB, hypertension (HTN), CCI 2, and CCI >/=3 predicted PPMI (aOR 4.82, p<0.001; aOR 1.63, p<0.001; aOR 1.21, p=0.013, aOR 1.53, p=0.022 and aOR 1.46, p=0.031 respectively). On multivariate analyses, patients who underwent PPMI had significantly higher LOS (aOR 2.18, p<0.001) and incurred higher total charges (USD 278,000 vs USD 204,920; p<0.001). Conclusion: In this cohort, RBBB, LBBB, HTN, and increased CCI predicted PPMI after TAVR. Further studies are required to corroborate our findings.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
永久性起搏器在经导管主动脉瓣置换术中的应用:来自全国住院患者样本的真实世界经验
背景:经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)与传导异常相关,需要永久性起搏器植入(PPMI)。关于TAVR后PPMI预测因素的数据很少。方法:采用2017年全国住院患者样本(NIS)进行回顾性研究。在同一入院期间接受TAVR和PPMI的患者使用适当的ICD-10代码进行识别,左束支(LBBB),右束支(RBBB)和一级房室延迟(AVB)的患者也是如此。患者根据PPMI分为两组。在调整年龄、性别、种族、合并症、保险状况和Charlson合并症指数(CCI)后,采用单因素和多因素分析对各组进行比较。次要结局包括影响住院时间(LOS)和总费用的因素。结果:2017年,54175例(男性57.6%)患者接受了TAVR。基线时,有8067例LBBB, 2402例RBBB和2905例AVB。共有4170例患者(55.2%为男性)需要PPMI。需要PPMI的患者年龄较大(80.5 vs 79.6岁,p=0.001)。在多变量分析中,基线RBBB、LBBB、高血压(HTN)、CCI 2和CCI >/=3预测PPMI (aOR 4.82, p<0.001;aOR 1.63, p<0.001;aOR 1.21, p=0.013; aOR 1.53, p=0.022; aOR 1.46, p=0.031)。在多变量分析中,接受PPMI的患者有更高的LOS (aOR 2.18, p<0.001)和更高的总费用(278,000美元vs 204,920美元;p < 0.001)。结论:在该队列中,RBBB、LBBB、HTN和CCI升高预测TAVR后PPMI。需要进一步的研究来证实我们的发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Major Factors Affecting Oocyte Quality in IVF Cycles: A Narrative Review Mucormycosis as a Rare Infection in Lower Limb Necrotizing Fasciitis: A Case Report Effect of the Innominate Bone Horizontal Rotation on Acetabular Version: A Retrospective Radiological Study on a Middle Eastern Population Uveitis as a Manifestation of Celiac Disease: A Population-Based Study Differentiating Between Mass-forming Chronic Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Challenging Clinical Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1