Permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: impact on late clinical outcomes and left ventricular function.

BACKGROUND Very few data exist on the clinical impact of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of PPI after transcatheter aortic valve implantation on late outcomes in a large cohort of patients. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 1556 consecutive patients without prior PPI undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation were included. Of them, 239 patients (15.4%) required a PPI within the first 30 days after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. At a mean follow-up of 22±17 months, no association was observed between the need for 30-day PPI and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.30; P=0.871), cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.17; P=0.270), and all-cause mortality or rehospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.30; P=0.980). A lower rate of unexpected (sudden or unknown) death was observed in patients with PPI (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.85; P=0.023). Patients with new PPI showed a poorer evolution of left ventricular ejection fraction over time (P=0.017), and new PPI was an independent predictor of left ventricular ejection fraction decrease at the 6- to 12-month follow-up (estimated coefficient, -2.26; 95% confidence interval, -4.07 to -0.44; P=0.013; R(2)=0.121). CONCLUSIONS The need for PPI was a frequent complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, but it was not associated with any increase in overall or cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for heart failure after a mean follow-up of ≈2 years. Indeed, 30-day PPI was a protective factor for the occurrence of unexpected (sudden or unknown) death. However, new PPI did have a negative effect on left ventricular function over time.

Evaluation of two HbA1c point-of-care analyzers.

BACKGROUND Measurement of HbA1c is the most important parameter to assess glycemic control in diabetic patients. Different point-of-care devices for HbA1c are available. The aim of this study was to evaluate two point-of-care testing (POCT) analyzers (DCA Vantage from Siemens and Afinion from Axis-Shield). We studied the bias and precision as well as interference from carbamylated hemoglobin. METHODS Bias of the POCT analyzers was obtained by measuring 53 blood samples from diabetic patients with a wide range of HbA1c, 4%-14% (20-130 mmol/mol), and comparing the results with those obtained by the laboratory method: HPLC HA 8160 Menarini. Precision was performed by 20 successive determinations of two samples with low 4.2% (22 mmol/mol) and high 9.5% (80 mmol/mol) HbA1c values. The possible interference from carbamylated hemoglobin was studied using 25 samples from patients with chronic renal failure. RESULTS The means of the differences between measurements performed by each POCT analyzer and the laboratory method (95% confidence interval) were: 0.28% (p<0.005) (0.10-0.44) for DCA and 0.27% (p<0.001) (0.19-0.35) for Afinion. Correlation coefficients were: r=0.973 for DCA, and r=0.991 for Afinion. The mean bias observed by using samples from chronic renal failure patients were 0.2 (range -0.4, 0.4) for DCA and 0.2 (-0.2, 0.5) for Afinion. Imprecision results were: CV=3.1% (high HbA1c) and 2.97% (low HbA1c) for DCA, CV=1.95% (high HbA1c) and 2.66% (low HbA1c) for Afinion. CONCLUSIONS Both POCT analyzers for HbA1c show good correlation with the laboratory method and acceptable precision.