Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) can be complicated with a high-degree atrioventricular block requiring a permanent pacemaker (PPM) in 5% - 25% of patients. Association between body mass index (BMI) and pacemaker implantation has not been extensively studied. We compared standard BMI classes with the odds of requiring a PPM implantation in patients undergoing TAVR with Edwards SAPIEN™ 3 valves (ESV3) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA). Methods: Our study involved a single-center retrospective cohort analysis of 449 patients undergoing TAVR from December 2012 to April 2018. First, we excluded patients with a TAVR procedure done with valves other than the ESV3 (127 patients). Second, patients with a prior PPM or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (37 patients) were excluded. Finally, patients with an aborted procedure and surgical conversion were excluded (16 patients). The final sample size was 269. The primary outcome was pacemaker implantation. Statistical analysis was done using the Chi-square test, T-test, and adjusted logistic regression. Results: Of the 269 patients (50.6% males; mean age of 79.5 ± 8.7 years; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score: 6.2), pacemaker implantation was performed in 17 patients (6.3%). Time to pacemaker implantation was 1.3 days. Patients were divided into four categories based on their BMI: as underweight (BMI < 25; 67 patients), normal (BMI: 25 to ≤ 30; 87 patients), overweight (BMI: 30 to ≤ 35; 60 patients), and obese (BMI ≥ 35; 55 patients). Pacemaker implantation was significantly higher in patients with a BMI of > 30 (13 vs. 4, p = 0.037). After logistic linear regression, the odds of getting a PPM after TAVR were significantly higher in patients who were overweight (odds ratio (OR): 12.77, p = 0.024; confidence interval (CI): 1.39 - 17.25) and obese (OR: 15.02, p = 0.036, CI: 1.19 - 19.92). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that increased BMI is a possible risk factor for a high-degree atrioventricular block in patients receiving ESV3.

No abstract

Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) can be complicated with a complete atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. The cost of index hospitalization for such patients is higher than usual. However, the magnitude of this increased cost is uncertain. We have looked at our five-year TAVR experience to analyze the detailed cost for PPM implantation in TAVR. Methods This study is a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing TAVR at our tertiary care center from December 2012 to April 2018. The initial sample size was 449. We excluded patients with prior PPM or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (37). Patients who had their procedure aborted or required a cardiopulmonary bypass (16) and those with missing data variables (14) were excluded. The final sample size was 382. The cost for admission was calculated as the US dollars incurred by the hospital. Cohort costs were categorized as a direct cost, which is patient based, and an indirect cost, which represents overhead costs and is independent of patient volume. Patients were divided into two groups based on the placement of PPM after TAVR. Chi-square test, t-test, and logistic linear regression were used for the statistical analysis. Results Of 382 patients, 19 (4.9%) required PPM after TAVR. Baseline variables, including age, gender, and BMI, were not statistically significant. The PPM group had a significantly longer intensive care unit (ICU) stay (48.6 hours vs. 36.7 hours; p<0.001) and total stay in the hospital (4.2 days vs. 3.4 days; p=0.047). PPM implantation after TAVR increased cost on an average of $10,213 more than a typical TAVR admission (p=0.04). The direct cost was also significantly high for the PPM group ($7,087; p=0.02). On detailed analysis, almost all major cost categories showed a higher cost for pacemaker patients when compared with control. Conclusions PPM implantation adds a significant cost burden to TAVR admissions.

No abstract

Background: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection has been associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Methods: A retrospective study was conducted within the OSF HealthCare System in Peoria, Illinois. The objectives were to determine the incidence of acute VTE and ACS within one year of CMV testing. The “study group” included patients with positive CMV IgM or positive CMV Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). The “seropositive control” group included patients with positive CMV IgG and negative IgM. The “seronegative control” group included patients with negative CMV IgG and IgM, or negative PCR. Results: Within one year of CMV infection, 38 of 379 patients (10.0%) developed VTE in the study group compared to 41 of 1334 patients (3.1%) in the seropositive control and 37 of 1249 (3.0%) in the seronegative control. Adjusting for age and gender, both control groups were less likely to have VTE than the study group within one year (Seropositive Control: OR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.5, p &lt;0.0001; Seronegative Control: OR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.6, p &lt;0.0001). ACS was more likely to occur in the study group, with incidence of 7.7% compared to 4.7% (p &lt;0.0001) in the seropositive control and 1.9% (p &lt;0.0001) in the seronegative control. Adjusting for age and gender, the seronegative control was less likely to develop ACS than the study group within one year (OR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.7, p = 0.003). Conclusions: This retrospective study demonstrates that CMV infection may be a significant risk factor for VTE and ACS.