Background As transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technology expands to healthy and lower‐risk populations, the burden and predictors of procedure‐related complications including the need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation needs to be identified. Methods and Results Digital databases were systematically searched to identify studies reporting the incidence of PPM implantation after TAVR. A random‐ and fixed‐effects model was used to calculate unadjusted odds ratios (OR) for all predictors. A total of 78 studies, recruiting 31 261 patients were included in the final analysis. Overall, 6212 patients required a PPM, with a mean of 18.9% PPM per study and net rate ranging from 0.16% to 51%. The pooled estimates on a random‐effects model indicated significantly higher odds of post‐TAVR PPM implantation for men (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04–1.28); for patients with baseline mobitz type‐1 second‐degree atrioventricular block (OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.64–5.93), left anterior hemiblock (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.09–1.86), bifascicular block (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.52–4.42), right bundle‐branch block (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 2.17–2.83), and for periprocedural atriorventricular block (OR, 4.17; 95% CI, 2.69–6.46). The mechanically expandable valves had 1.44 (95% CI, 1.18–1.76), while self‐expandable valves had 1.93 (95% CI, 1.42–2.63) fold higher odds of PPM requirement compared with self‐expandable and balloon‐expandable valves, respectively. Conclusions Male sex, baseline atrioventricular conduction delays, intraprocedural atrioventricular block, and use of mechanically expandable and self‐expanding prosthesis served as positive predictors of PPM implantation in patients undergoing TAVR.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Redo mitral valve surgery is required in up to one‐third of patients and is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Valve‐in‐valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (ViV TMVR) is less invasive and could be considered in those at prohibitive surgical risk. Studies on comparative outcomes of ViV TMVR and redo surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR) remain limited. Our study aimed to investigate the real‐world outcomes of the above procedures using the National Inpatient Sample database. Methods and Results We analyzed National Inpatient Sample data using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification ( ICD‐10‐CM ) from September 2015 to December 2018. A total of 495 and 2250 patients underwent redo ViV TMVR and SMVR, respectively. The patients who underwent ViV TMVR were older (77 versus 68 years, P <0.01). Adjusted mortality was higher in the redo SMVR group compared with the ViV TMVR group (7.6% versus <2.8%, P <0.01). Perioperative complications were higher among patients undergoing redo SMVR including blood transfusions (38% versus 7.6%, P <0.01) and acute kidney injury (36.7% versus 13.9%, P <0.01). Cost of care was higher (USD$57 172 versus USD$52 579, P <0.01), length of stay was longer (10 versus 3 days, P <0.01), and discharge to home was lower (20.3% versus 64.6%, P <0.01) in the SMVR group compared with the ViV TMVR group. Conclusions ViV TMVR is associated with lower mortality, periprocedural morbidity, and resource use compared with patients undergoing redo SMVR. ViV TMVR may be a viable option for some patients with mitral prosthesis dysfunction. Studies evaluating long‐term outcomes and durability of ViV TMVR are needed. A patient‐centered approach by the heart team, local institutional expertise, and careful preprocedure planning can help decision‐making about the choice of intervention for the individual patient.

Background Women continue to be underrepresented in cardiology and even more so in leadership positions. We evaluated the trends and gender differences in the guideline writing groups of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines from 2006 to 2020. Methods and Results We extracted all guidelines authors from 2006 to 2020, assessed their gender from publicly available profiles, and compared differences based on subspecialties and specific societies. Stratified and trend analyses were performed using χ 2 and average annual percentage change/average 5 year percentage change. A total of 80 ACC/AHA (1288 authors [28% women]), 64 CCS (988 authors [26% women]), and 59 ESC (1157 authors [16% women]) guidelines were analyzed. A significant increase in inclusion of women was seen in ACC/AHA (12.6% [2006] to 42.6% [2020]; average annual percentage change, 6.6% [2.3% to 11.1%]; P =0.005) and ESC (7.1% [2006] to 25.8% [2020]; average annual percentage change, 6.6% [0.2% to 13.5%]; P =0.04), but the trend remained similar in CCS (20.6% [2006] to 36.3% [2020]; average annual percentage change, −0.1% (−3.7% to 3.5%); P =0.94), guideline authors. More women were coauthors in the ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines when women were chairs of guidelines. There was a persistent disparity of women among guideline authors for general cardiology and all subspecialties, except for pediatric cardiology and heart failure guidelines. The appointment of women authors as a chair was significantly low in all societies (22.4% [ACC/AHA], 16.9% [CCS], and 7.2% [ESC]; P =0.008). Conclusions There is a significant disparity in the inclusion of women on all national guideline committees, in addition to serving as a chair of cardiology guidelines. Further advocacy is required to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion in our cardiology guidelines globally.