loading page

not-yet-known not-yet-known not-yet-known unknown ”Decoding the H-V Interval: Unraveling Its Reliability as a Pacemaker Indicator Post-TAVI”
  • +2
  • Ammar Ahmed,
  • Christopher Bradley,
  • Medhat Chowdhury,
  • Phanindra Antharam,
  • Harini Lakshman
Ammar Ahmed
Ascension Providence Hospital Southfield Campus
Author Profile
Christopher Bradley
Ascension Providence Hospital Southfield Campus
Author Profile
Medhat Chowdhury
Ascension Providence Hospital Southfield Campus
Author Profile
Phanindra Antharam
Ascension Providence Hospital Southfield Campus
Author Profile
Harini Lakshman
Ascension Providence Hospital Southfield Campus

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile

Abstract

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.