NCT04139616

Brief Summary

The high incidence and variety of conduction disturbances post-TAVR represents a major challenge in the periprocedural management of TAVR recipients. Despite the growing body of knowledge on this topic, the large variability in the management of these complications has translated into a high degree of uncertainty regarding the most appropriate treatment of a large proportion of such patients. The implementation of a pre-specified treatment strategy translating into a more uniform practice regarding the management of conduction disturbances post-TAVR applied to a large cohort of patients would permit to identify the benefits and drawbacks of each specific aspect of the treatment algorithm proposal. This may also help to improve both the management and clinical outcomes of the complex group of patients with conduction disturbances associated with TAVR. In the end, the final objective of a pre-specified strategy for managing conduction disturbances post-TAVR should be to obtain a low rate of PPM without increasing the risk of sudden death or life threatening arrhythmic events following hospital discharge, and all this while avoiding an excessive prolongation of the hospitalization period following the TAVR procedure.

Trial Health

77
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
2,000

participants targeted

Target at P75+ for all trials

Timeline
8mo left

Started Feb 2020

Longer than P75 for all trials

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
recruiting

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Progress91%
Feb 2020Dec 2026

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

October 21, 2019

Completed
4 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

October 25, 2019

Completed
4 months until next milestone

Study Start

First participant enrolled

February 25, 2020

Completed
4.8 years until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

December 25, 2024

Completed
2 years until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

December 25, 2026

Expected
Last Updated

March 27, 2026

Status Verified

March 1, 2026

Enrollment Period

4.8 years

First QC Date

October 21, 2019

Last Update Submit

March 23, 2026

Conditions

Keywords

atrioventricular blockcomplete heart blockhigh-degree atrioventricular blockintraventricular conduction delayleft bundle branch blockPermanent pacemaker implantationRight bundle branch block

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (5)

  • Rate of successful algorithm implementation and percentage of patients in each arm of the pre-specified algorithm

    1 year follow-up

  • Incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation

    At 30-day follow-up

  • Incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation

    At 1-year follow-up

  • Incidence of sudden death

    At 30-day follow-up

  • Incidence of sudden death

    At 1-year follow-up

Secondary Outcomes (13)

  • Rate, timing of and reasons for permanent pacemaker implantation

    Before hospital discharge (between 1 to 30 days)

  • Rate, timing of and reasons for permanent pacemaker implantation

    At 30-day follow-up

  • Rate, timing of and reasons for permanent pacemaker implantation

    At 1 year follow-up

  • Rate and timing of sudden death

    At 30-day follow-up

  • Rate and timing of sudden death

    At 1-year follow-up

  • +8 more secondary outcomes

Study Arms (5)

No ECG changes in patients without pre-existing RBBB

Patients with no new conduction disturbances on the ECG performed immediately post-TAVR (and no episodes of HAVB/CHB during the procedure) have a very low risk of developing HAVB/CHB or any conduction disturbance within the hours-days following the procedure. In these cases, temporary pacing will be discontinued at the end of the procedure. However, continuous ECG monitoring until hospital discharge is recommended. A 12-lead ECG is recommended 24 hours after the procedure. If no arrhythmic episodes and no ECG changes occur within the 24 hours post-procedure, the patient can be safely discharged (the day after TAVR) with no other monitoring measures in case of otherwise uneventful clinical course (absence of other TAVR related adverse events). If the patient has to remain hospitalized because of other reasons or TAVR complications, telemetry would be recommended (but no strictly required) for the detection of post-TAVR tachyarrhythmias or late ECG changes.

Patients with pre-existing RBBB

A temporary pacing wire is recommended to be maintained for 24 hours (or at least overnight) in all patients with prior RBBB, along with telemetry and daily ECG during the entire hospitalization period (minimum of 2 days). If any ECG changes occur during the initial 2-3 days, patients can be managed according to the proposed strategy (see management strategies for groups 3 and 5). If no ECG changes or significant bradyarrythmias occur within the 2-3 days following the procedure, the patient can be discharged. Considering that the increased risk of life threatening bradyarrhythmias in these patients may extend beyond the hospitalization period, the use of continuous ECG monitoring systems (minimum of 48 hours, up to 4 weeks) may be considered.

ECG changes in patients with prior conduction disturbances

Any significant increase in PR or QRS interval will indicate to continuing the temporary pacing for 24 hrs, with daily ECG and telemetry for 1-2 days. If the ECG changes regress in \<24 hrs, an earlier removal of the temporary pacing may be considered. Also, a strategy of multiple ECGs during the first 24 hrs may be considered. If ECG changes regress or no further changes occur the patient can be discharged with no PPM at 2 days post-TAVR. If 24 hrs post-TAVR, the PR and QRS interval remain stable but \>240 or \>150 ms, respectively, and ≥20 ms longer than baseline, maintaining the temporary pacing wire for another 24 hrs is recommended. If no decrease in the PR or QRS duration occurs at day 2, the patient can be considered at risk for more advanced conduction disturbances requiring PPM. The use of an EP study may be a reasonable option for deciding PPM in those patients with prior conduction disturbances with worsening of ECG changes post-TAVR

New-onset LBBB

Temporary pacing for 24 hrs is recommended, in all patients with new-onset LBBB post-TAVR. Earlier removal of the temporary pacing and discharged at day 1 can be considered if LBBB resolves in \<24 hrs. If LBBB persists but no further progression of the duration of the QRS or PR interval is observed at day 1, temporary pacing can be discontinued. If no further ECG changes are observed up to day 2-3 post-TAVR, the patient can be discharged. These patients are however at increased risk of HAVB/CHB requiring PPM, and continuous ECG monitoring and/or EP studies may be considered. If further prolongation of the QRS or PR interval is observed at day 1, the temporary pacing is recommended for an additional 24 hrs. If the prolongation of the QRS or PR intervals continues at day 2, evaluation with EP studies or PPM implantation may be considered. The occurrence of any episode of HAVB/CHB following TAVR in a patient with new-onset LBBB will be considered an indication for PPM

HAVB/CHB during the periprocedural period

Maintaining temporary pacing in patients with procedural persistent HAVB/CHB, and monitoring in intensive care unit are recommended. If HAVB/CHB persists at 24 hrs, PPM is recommended. If HAVB/CHB recovers the day after TAVR, the temporary pacing can be removed and the patient can remain hospitalized for 1 day. If another episode of HAVB/CHB occurs, PPM is recommended. If no other episode of HAVB/CHB occurs, and no other features potentially justifying PPM exist the patient can be discharged. Temporary pacing is recommended for 24 hrs in patients with transient HAVB during the procedure, with telemetry and daily ECG for 2 days. Discontinuing temporary pacing may be considered in those cases with brief episodes of HAVB/CHB and normal ECG. If no recurrent episodes of HAVB/CHB occur, and the patient has no other potential indications for PPM the patient can be discharged at day 2. PPM would be indicated if any recurrent episode of HAVB/CHB occurs during the hospitalization period.

Eligibility Criteria

Age18 Years+
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersYes
Age GroupsAdult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)
Sampling MethodProbability Sample
Study Population

Patients with aortic valve disease undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement without prior permanent pacemaker

You may qualify if:

  • Patients with aortic valve disease undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

You may not qualify if:

  • Prior permanent pacemaker
  • Failure to provide signed informed consent for data collection
  • Impossibility for a follow-up
  • Unwillingness to follow the pre-specified strategy for the management of conduction disturbances

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

IUCPQ

Québec, Quebec, G1V 4G5, Canada

RECRUITING

Related Publications (11)

  • Puri R, Chamandi C, Rodriguez-Gabella T, Rodes-Cabau J. Future of transcatheter aortic valve implantation - evolving clinical indications. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2018 Jan;15(1):57-65. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2017.116. Epub 2017 Aug 24.

    PMID: 28836620BACKGROUND
  • Kolte D, Vlahakes GJ, Palacios IF, Sakhuja R, Passeri JJ, Inglessis I, Elmariah S. Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Sep 24;74(12):1532-1540. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.06.076.

    PMID: 31537261BACKGROUND
  • Auffret V, Lefevre T, Van Belle E, Eltchaninoff H, Iung B, Koning R, Motreff P, Leprince P, Verhoye JP, Manigold T, Souteyrand G, Boulmier D, Joly P, Pinaud F, Himbert D, Collet JP, Rioufol G, Ghostine S, Bar O, Dibie A, Champagnac D, Leroux L, Collet F, Teiger E, Darremont O, Folliguet T, Leclercq F, Lhermusier T, Olhmann P, Huret B, Lorgis L, Drogoul L, Bertrand B, Spaulding C, Quilliet L, Cuisset T, Delomez M, Beygui F, Claudel JP, Hepp A, Jegou A, Gommeaux A, Mirode A, Christiaens L, Christophe C, Cassat C, Metz D, Mangin L, Isaaz K, Jacquemin L, Guyon P, Pouillot C, Makowski S, Bataille V, Rodes-Cabau J, Gilard M, Le Breton H; FRANCE TAVI Investigators. Temporal Trends in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in France: FRANCE 2 to FRANCE TAVI. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Jul 4;70(1):42-55. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.04.053.

    PMID: 28662806BACKGROUND
  • Auffret V, Puri R, Urena M, Chamandi C, Rodriguez-Gabella T, Philippon F, Rodes-Cabau J. Conduction Disturbances After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Circulation. 2017 Sep 12;136(11):1049-1069. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.028352.

    PMID: 28893961BACKGROUND
  • van Rosendael PJ, Delgado V, Bax JJ. Pacemaker implantation rate after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with early and new-generation devices: a systematic review. Eur Heart J. 2018 Jun 1;39(21):2003-2013. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx785.

    PMID: 29420704BACKGROUND
  • Cerrato E, Nombela-Franco L, Nazif TM, Eltchaninoff H, Sondergaard L, Ribeiro HB, Barbanti M, Nietlispach F, De Jaegere P, Agostoni P, Trillo R, Jimenez-Quevedo P, D'Ascenzo F, Wendler O, Maluenda G, Chen M, Tamburino C, Macaya C, Leon MB, Rodes-Cabau J. Evaluation of current practices in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: The WRITTEN (WoRldwIde TAVI ExperieNce) survey. Int J Cardiol. 2017 Feb 1;228:640-647. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.104. Epub 2016 Nov 9.

    PMID: 27883975BACKGROUND
  • Rodes-Cabau J, Ellenbogen KA, Krahn AD, Latib A, Mack M, Mittal S, Muntane-Carol G, Nazif TM, Sondergaard L, Urena M, Windecker S, Philippon F. Management of Conduction Disturbances Associated With Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: JACC Scientific Expert Panel. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 27;74(8):1086-1106. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.07.014.

    PMID: 31439219BACKGROUND
  • Kusumoto FM, Schoenfeld MH, Barrett C, Edgerton JR, Ellenbogen KA, Gold MR, Goldschlager NF, Hamilton RM, Joglar JA, Kim RJ, Lee R, Marine JE, McLeod CJ, Oken KR, Patton KK, Pellegrini CN, Selzman KA, Thompson A, Varosy PD. 2018 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines, and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 20;74(7):932-987. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.043. Epub 2018 Nov 6. No abstract available.

    PMID: 30412710BACKGROUND
  • Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Genereux P, Piazza N, van Mieghem NM, Blackstone EH, Brott TG, Cohen DJ, Cutlip DE, van Es GA, Hahn RT, Kirtane AJ, Krucoff MW, Kodali S, Mack MJ, Mehran R, Rodes-Cabau J, Vranckx P, Webb JG, Windecker S, Serruys PW, Leon MB. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. Eur Heart J. 2012 Oct;33(19):2403-18. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs255.

    PMID: 23026477BACKGROUND
  • Fischer Q, Nombela-Franco L, Muntane-Carol G, Veiga G, Regueiro A, Nazif T, Serra V, Asmarats L, Ribeiro HB, Latib A, Poulin A, Cheema AN, Tirado-Conte G, Gomez-Hospital JA, Gil Ongay A, Gabani R, Arzamendi D, Brener M, Calabuig A, Scotti A, Gelain MAS, Labinaz M, Cepas-Guillen P, Cote M, Del Portillo JH, Philippon F, Rodes-Cabau J. Prophylactic Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2025 Nov;11(11):2484-2492. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2025.07.028. Epub 2025 Sep 17.

  • Fischer Q, Nombela-Franco L, Muntane-Carol G, Veiga G, Regueiro A, Nazif T, Serra V, Asmarats L, Ribeiro HB, Latib A, Poulin A, Cheema AN, Jimenez-Quevedo P, Gomez-Hospital JA, Gil Ongay A, Ruberti A, Arzamendi D, Brener M, Calabuig A, Scotti A, Gelain MAS, Labinaz M, Cepas-Guillen P, Cote M, Del Portillo JH, Philippon F, Rodes-Cabau J. Risk of delayed atrioventricular block in patients without procedural conduction disturbances during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Heart Rhythm. 2025 Apr 14:S1547-5271(25)02333-1. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.04.017. Online ahead of print.

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Atrioventricular BlockBundle-Branch Block

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Heart BlockArrhythmias, CardiacHeart DiseasesCardiovascular DiseasesCardiac Conduction System DiseasePathologic ProcessesPathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms

Central Study Contacts

Study Design

Study Type
observational
Observational Model
COHORT
Time Perspective
PROSPECTIVE
Target Duration
1 Year
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
Principal Investigator

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

October 21, 2019

First Posted

October 25, 2019

Study Start

February 25, 2020

Primary Completion

December 25, 2024

Study Completion (Estimated)

December 25, 2026

Last Updated

March 27, 2026

Record last verified: 2026-03

Locations