Impact of the repositionable Evolut R CoreValve system on the need for a permanent pacemaker after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVES To compare the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) with the CoreValve and Evolut R prostheses, to evaluate the implantation depth with both types of prostheses, and to study factors predicting the need for PPI. BACKGROUND The Evolut R CoreValve can be recaptured and repositioned during deployment, allowing a more precise implantation. METHODS A total of 208 patients treated with CoreValve and 137 patients treated with Evolut R were analyzed. The depth of the prosthesis in the LVOT was measured by angiography in the annular perpendicular view projection after deploymen in all patients. RESULTS Baseline conduction abnormalities were comparable between the groups (85/208, 40.9% vs. 53/137, 38.7%; p = 0.69). The mean prosthesis depth was 10.3 ± 8.6 mm in the CoreValve group and 5.5 ± 2.7 mm in the Evolut R group; p < 0.0001. Conduction disturbances after valve implantation were more frequent with the CoreValve (new-onset left bundle branch block: 93, 44.7% vs. 16, 11.7%; p < 0.05, first-degree atrioventricular block: 23, 11.1% vs. 5, 3.6%; p < 0.05). In addition, the incidence of PPI was significantly lower with Evolut R (45, 21.6% vs. 15, 10.9%; p = 0.01). The predictors of the need for PPI were the mean depth of the prosthesis (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.06-1.21; p < 0.0001) and prior right bundle branch block (OR 10.22, 95% CI: 4.62-22.63; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS The recapturable capability of the Evolut R system allowed for higher and precise valve implantation. This fact had an impact on the reduction in the need for PPI.