From the Journals

ACC expert consensus on post-TAVR arrhythmias


 

Intraprocedural management

On the day of the procedure, patients determined to have elevated risk for complete AV heart block require careful perioperative ECG and hemodynamic monitoring. Regardless of preexisting risk, said the authors that all patients should be monitored on a telemetry unit during the procedure with ability to do emergency pacing if necessary.

“In the periprocedural section, we address the role of electrophysiological studies for identifying patients at high-risk of subsequent heart block,” said Dr. Lilly. “That’s a practice that’s occurring at a number of centers, but the data out there is insufficient to establish it as a pacemaker indication. Routine EP testing for patients deemed at risk for conduction disturbances after TAVR is not guideline-based and more research is needed.”

The document also outlines the effects of medications and anesthesia on postprocedure conduction abnormalities.

Post-TAVR management

The authors define post-TAVR management as continuing through 30-days after discharge.

The ECDP carefully outlines which patients can be discharged without monitoring and those for whom outpatient monitoring can be considered.

“If I’m going to pick one thing from this section, it’s the monitoring piece. A lot of patients that have a conduction disturbance right after TAVR – but you’re not sure if it’s going to progress and require a pacemaker – might stay in the hospital for an extended time waiting to see if the heart holds up,” reported Dr. Lilly.

“But a number of centers are now discharging people at 1 or 2 days, which begs the question: What do you do with these folks? Our group has published data showing that 30-day monitoring in select patients is a safe approach,” said Dr. Lilly.

There are shortcomings, however, in existing data, and recommendations will likely change as more data are collected, he explained.

As well, there remains uncertainty in how conduction block should be managed after TAVR, and clinical judgment is “foundational” in this, wrote the authors.

“This document is meant to help programs deal with these situations right now, acknowledging full and well, that really good randomized clinical data is not available,” said Dr. Lilly.

Dr. Lilly has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The work of the writing committee was supported exclusively by the American College of Cardiology without commercial support.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Pages

Recommended Reading

ESC 2020 looks to make its mark in ‘new era’ of virtual meetings
MDedge Cardiology
Early rhythm control in AFib gains new life
MDedge Cardiology
New ESC/EACTS guideline on atrial fibrillation
MDedge Cardiology
RATE-AF trial boosts digoxin for rate control in permanent AFib
MDedge Cardiology
HOME-PE trial clarifies which pulmonary embolism patients to treat at home
MDedge Cardiology
IMPACT-AFib: Single mailing fails to budge oral anticoagulant uptake for AFib
MDedge Cardiology
Liberalized European sports cardiology guidelines break new ground
MDedge Cardiology
‘Cautious’ DOAC underdosing in AFib may push mortality higher
MDedge Cardiology
Valvular AFib heightens risk in TAVR
MDedge Cardiology
AHA adds recovery, emotional support to CPR guidelines
MDedge Cardiology