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

ObjectiveNeutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has prognostic value in acute coronary syndromes. We investigated its utility for predicting heart failure (HF) admissions and major adverse cardiac outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).MethodsData on clinical, laboratory, procedural, HF admissions, and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (all-cause mortality, recurrence of myocardial infarction requiring intervention, stroke) for 298 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR between 2012 and 2016 in our tertiary center were collected.ResultsAnalysis included 298 patients. The mean age was 83 ± 8 years, 51% were males, and 95% were Caucasians. The median Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 9 (interquartile range: 6.3–11.8). Receiver-operating curve analysis identified a cutoff value of NLR of 4.0 for MACE after TAVR and sensitivity of 68% and specificity of 68% {area under the curve [AUC] = 0.65 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51–0.79], p = 0.03}. An NLR of 4.0 for HF hospitalizations after TAVR and sensitivity of 60% and specificity of 57% [AUC = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.53–0.69), p = 0.01]. NLR ≥4.0 before TAVR significantly predicted MACE after TAVR (68.4% vs. 31.6%, p = 0.02) and HF hospitalizations (58.3% vs. 41.7%, p = 0.03). NLR with TAVR risk score increased the predictive value for MACE after TAVR from AUC = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.50–0.72, p = 0.06) to AUC = 0.69 (95% CI: 0.57–0.80, p = 0.007).ConclusionNLR predicts all-cause mortality, MACE, and HF hospitalization 1 year after TAVR. NLR with TAVR risk score improved predictability for MACE. Further studies for prognostication using NLR are warranted.

Background: During the initial phases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic, there was an unfounded fervor surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ); however, recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended against routine use of HCQ outside of study protocols citing possible adverse outcomes. Methods: Multiple databases were searched to identify articles on COVID-19. An unadjusted odds ratio (OR) was used to calculate the safety and efficacy of HCQ on a random effect model. Results: Twelve studies comprising 3,912 patients (HCQ 2,512 and control 1400) were included. The odds of all-cause mortality (OR: 2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.58-3.13, P value < 0.00001) were significantly higher in patients on HCQ compared to patients on control agent. The response to therapy assessed by negative repeat polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 0.50-6.75, P = 0.36), radiological resolution (OR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.47-8.36, P value = 0.36) and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.34-4.33, P value = 0.76) were identical between the two groups. Overall, four times higher odds of net adverse events (NAEs) were observed in the HCQ group (OR: 4.59, 95% CI 1.73-12.20, P value = 0.02). The measures for individual safety endpoints were also numerically lower in the control arm; however, none of these values reached the level of statistical significance. Conclusions: HCQ might offer no benefits in terms of decreasing the viral load and radiological improvement in patients with COVID-19. HCQ appears to be associated with higher odds of all-cause mortality and NAEs.

No abstract