Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Conduction System Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR)
Main finding · Composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalizationResult — go to the resultHazard ratio 0.57 95% CI 0.39–0.83- retrospective, multicenter nationwide registry
- propensity score matching (1:1)
+1 more
- propensity score matching (1:1)
Authors' conclusion
In this multicenter propensity score-matched study, CPP after TAVR was associated with a lower risk of the primary endpoint, driven by fewer HF hospitalizations. These findings support the need for further randomized clinical trials to evaluate the role of CPP in post-TAVR patients requiring ventricular pacing.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing TAVR and pacemaker implantation within 30 days
- Participants
- 466 matched pairs
- Exposure
- Cardiac physiological pacing (CPP) vs right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients requiring permanent pacing after TAVR
- Outcome
- Composite of:
- Cardiovascular death
- Heart failure (HF) hospitalization
- Follow-up
- Median 24 months
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Composite of:
- Cardiovascular death
- HF hospitalization
Hazard ratio
0.57
95% CI 0.39–0.83
P = 0.003
By group
CPP vs RVP
HR 0.57 (95% CI 0.39–0.83); P = 0.003
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
| Outcome | CPP | RVP | HR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HF hospitalizations | 7.9% | 13.9% | 0.57 (0.37–0.86) | P = 0.008 | |
| 0.20.5125Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality
- No significant differences between groups
Original publication
Conduction System Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients Undergoing TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Published 12 October 2026. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it