Objectives: To compare the effectiveness and safety of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) performed with or without rapid ventricular pacing (RP).
Background: BAV technique is poorly standardized.
Methods: One hundred consecutive patients were randomly assigned 1:1 between BAV performed with or without RP. Exclusion criteria were an immediate indication for surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement, presentation in cardiogenic shock or pulmonary edema refractory to medical stabilization.
Results: There were 51 patients in the BAV group performed with RP, 49 in the BAV group without RP (noRP). Procedural success (50% hemodynamic gradient reduction) was achieved in 37.3% and 55.1%, respectively (P = 0.16). Fewer people in the noRP group complained of poor tolerance to the procedure (16% vs 41%). The primary efficacy endpoint, a 50% reduction in the mean echocardiographic trans-aortic gradient, was met in 21/49 patients in the noRP group compared to 20/51 in the RP (42.9% vs 39.2%; P = 0.84). No significant difference between the groups was observed in the primary safety endpoint, a 30-day composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, acute aortic regurgitation, and BARC bleeding ≥3 (8.2% noRP vs 13.7%; P = 0.53). The noRP group required fewer bailout temporary pacemakers (P = 0.048) and had a lower incidence of moderate/severe renal function worsening (4.1% vs 17.6%; P = 0.052).
Conclusions: Rapid ventricular pacing did not influence BAV efficacy or safety and tolerance was slightly worse.
Keywords: aortic valve stenosis; aortic valvuloplasty; randomized trial; rapid ventricular pacing.
© 2017, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.