Conduction DisturbancesPROMOTENCT04139616
Prospective Validation of a Pre-Specified Algorithm for the Management of Conduction Disturbances Following TAVR
An observational study of Conduction Disturbances and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement, run by Centre de Recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Quebec at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
The high incidence and variety of conduction disturbances post-TAVR represents a major challenge in the periprocedural management of TAVR recipients. Despite the growing body of knowledge on this topic, the large variability in the management of these complications has translated into a high degree of uncertainty… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Conduction Disturbances, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement, Permanent Pacemaker Implantation
- How many people
- 2,000 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- 25 Feb 2020to 25 Dec 2027
- How long will I take part?
- 1 Year
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Patients with aortic valve disease undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement without prior permanent pacemaker
Who may be able to join
- -Patients with aortic valve disease undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Who cannot join
- Prior permanent pacemaker
- Failure to provide signed informed consent for data collection
- Impossibility for a follow-up
- Unwillingness to follow the pre-specified strategy for the management of conduction disturbances
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Canada1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
IUCPQ
Québec, Quebec, G1V 4G5
Josep Rodes-Cabau, MD, 4186568711, josep.rodes@criucpq.ulaval.ca
Melanie Cote, MSc, 4186568711 ext. Rodes-Cabau, melanie.cote@criucpq.ulaval.ca
About this study
Official title: Prospective Validation of a Pre-Specified Algorithm for the Management of Conduction Disturbances Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. The PROMOTE Study
The high incidence and variety of conduction disturbances post-TAVR represents a major challenge in the periprocedural management of TAVR recipients. Despite the growing body of knowledge on this topic, the large variability in the management of these complications has translated into a high degree of uncertainty regarding the most appropriate treatment of a large proportion of such patients. The implementation of a pre-specified treatment strategy translating into a more uniform practice regarding the management of conduction disturbances post-TAVR applied to a large cohort of patients would permit to identify the benefits and drawbacks of each specific aspect of the treatment algorithm proposal. This may also help to improve both the management and clinical outcomes of the complex group of patients with conduction disturbances associated with TAVR. In the end, the final objective of a pre-specified strategy for managing conduction disturbances post-TAVR should be to obtain a low rate of PPM without increasing the risk of sudden death or life threatening arrhythmic events following hospital discharge, and all this while avoiding an excessive prolongation of the hospitalization period following the TAVR procedure.
Read the detailed description
The objectives of the study are:
- Feasibility: to validate and determine the applicability of a pre-specified algorithm for managing conduction disturbances in consecutive patients undergoing TAVR, also evaluating the percentage of patients included in each group of the algorithm strategy.
- Efficacy: (i) to evaluate the rate of permanent pacemaker implantation in-hospital and at 30 days compared to that of the year prior to the implementation of the protocol, (ii) to determine the incidence of sudden death at 30 days and at 1-year follow-up.
- Conditions
- Conduction Disturbances, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement, Permanent Pacemaker Implantation
- Keywords
- atrioventricular block, complete heart block, high-degree atrioventricular block, intraventricular conduction delay, left bundle branch block, Permanent pacemaker implantation, Right bundle branch block
- Medical subject headings
- Atrioventricular Block, Bundle-Branch Block
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| No ECG changes in patients without pre-existing RBBB | Patients with no new conduction disturbances on the ECG performed immediately post-TAVR (and no episodes of HAVB/CHB during the procedure) have a very low risk of developing HAVB/CHB or any conduction disturbance within the hours-days following the procedure. In these cases, temporary pacing will be discontinued at the end of the procedure. However, continuous ECG monitoring until hospital discharge is recommended. A 12-lead ECG is recommended 24 hours after the procedure. If no arrhythmic episodes and no ECG changes occur within the 24 hours post-procedure, the patient can be safely discharged (the day after TAVR) with no other monitoring measures in case of otherwise uneventful clinical course (absence of other TAVR related adverse events). If the patient has to remain hospitalized because of other reasons or TAVR complications, telemetry would be recommended (but no strictly required) for the detection of post-TAVR tachyarrhythmias or late ECG changes. | |
| Patients with pre-existing RBBB | A temporary pacing wire is recommended to be maintained for 24 hours (or at least overnight) in all patients with prior RBBB, along with telemetry and daily ECG during the entire hospitalization period (minimum of 2 days). If any ECG changes occur during the initial 2-3 days, patients can be managed according to the proposed strategy (see management strategies for groups 3 and 5). If no ECG changes or significant bradyarrythmias occur within the 2-3 days following the procedure, the patient can be discharged. Considering that the increased risk of life threatening bradyarrhythmias in these patients may extend beyond the hospitalization period, the use of continuous ECG monitoring systems (minimum of 48 hours, up to 4 weeks) may be considered. | |
| ECG changes in patients with prior conduction disturbances | Any significant increase in PR or QRS interval will indicate to continuing the temporary pacing for 24 hrs, with daily ECG and telemetry for 1-2 days. If the ECG changes regress in <24 hrs, an earlier removal of the temporary pacing may be considered. Also, a strategy of multiple ECGs during the first 24 hrs may be considered. If ECG changes regress or no further changes occur the patient can be discharged with no PPM at 2 days post-TAVR. If 24 hrs post-TAVR, the PR and QRS interval remain stable but >240 or >150 ms, respectively, and ≥20 ms longer than baseline, maintaining the temporary pacing wire for another 24 hrs is recommended. If no decrease in the PR or QRS duration occurs at day 2, the patient can be considered at risk for more advanced conduction disturbances requiring PPM. The use of an EP study may be a reasonable option for deciding PPM in those patients with prior conduction disturbances with worsening of ECG changes post-TAVR | |
| New-onset LBBB | Temporary pacing for 24 hrs is recommended, in all patients with new-onset LBBB post-TAVR. Earlier removal of the temporary pacing and discharged at day 1 can be considered if LBBB resolves in <24 hrs. If LBBB persists but no further progression of the duration of the QRS or PR interval is observed at day 1, temporary pacing can be discontinued. If no further ECG changes are observed up to day 2-3 post-TAVR, the patient can be discharged. These patients are however at increased risk of HAVB/CHB requiring PPM, and continuous ECG monitoring and/or EP studies may be considered. If further prolongation of the QRS or PR interval is observed at day 1, the temporary pacing is recommended for an additional 24 hrs. If the prolongation of the QRS or PR intervals continues at day 2, evaluation with EP studies or PPM implantation may be considered. The occurrence of any episode of HAVB/CHB following TAVR in a patient with new-onset LBBB will be considered an indication for PPM | |
| HAVB/CHB during the periprocedural period | Maintaining temporary pacing in patients with procedural persistent HAVB/CHB, and monitoring in intensive care unit are recommended. If HAVB/CHB persists at 24 hrs, PPM is recommended. If HAVB/CHB recovers the day after TAVR, the temporary pacing can be removed and the patient can remain hospitalized for 1 day. If another episode of HAVB/CHB occurs, PPM is recommended. If no other episode of HAVB/CHB occurs, and no other features potentially justifying PPM exist the patient can be discharged. Temporary pacing is recommended for 24 hrs in patients with transient HAVB during the procedure, with telemetry and daily ECG for 2 days. Discontinuing temporary pacing may be considered in those cases with brief episodes of HAVB/CHB and normal ECG. If no recurrent episodes of HAVB/CHB occur, and the patient has no other potential indications for PPM the patient can be discharged at day 2. PPM would be indicated if any recurrent episode of HAVB/CHB occurs during the hospitalization period. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Rate of successful algorithm implementation and percentage of patients in each arm of the pre-specified algorithm
Measured: 1 year follow-up
Incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation
Measured: At 30-day follow-up
Incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation
Measured: At 1-year follow-up
Incidence of sudden death
Measured: At 30-day follow-up
Incidence of sudden death
Measured: At 1-year follow-up
Secondary outcomes (13)
Rate, timing of and reasons for permanent pacemaker implantation
Rate, timing of and reasons for permanent pacemaker implantation in each group of the pre-specified algorithm
Measured: Before hospital discharge (between 1 to 30 days)
Rate, timing of and reasons for permanent pacemaker implantation
Rate, timing of and reasons for permanent pacemaker implantation in each group of the pre-specified algorithm
Measured: At 30-day follow-up
Rate, timing of and reasons for permanent pacemaker implantation
Rate, timing of and reasons for permanent pacemaker implantation in each group of the pre-specified algorithm
Measured: At 1 year follow-up
Rate and timing of sudden death
Rate and timing of sudden death in each group of the pre-specified algorithm
Measured: At 30-day follow-up
Rate and timing of sudden death
Rate and timing of sudden death in each group of the pre-specified algorithm
Measured: At 1-year follow-up
Evaluation of arrhythmic events in patients with continuous ECG monitoring
Evaluation of arrhythmic events in patients with continuous ECG monitoring at hospital discharge
Measured: After hospital discharge (up to 1-year)
Evaluation of the rate and timing of permanent pacemaker implantation
Measured: After hospital discharge (up to 1-year)
Rate of PPI among valve types
Compare rate of permanent pacemaker implantation among different valve types
Measured: At 30-day follow-up
Rate of PPI among valve types
Compare rate of permanent pacemaker implantation among different valve types
Measured: At 1-year follow-up
Pace dependency and pacing rate
Determine the pace dependency and pacing rate in patients with periprocedural permanent pacemaker implantation (overall and in each subgroup of the algorithm)
Measured: At 30-day follow-up
Pace dependency and pacing rate
Determine the pace dependency and pacing rate in patients with periprocedural permanent pacemaker implantation (overall and in each subgroup of the algorithm)
Measured: At 1-year follow-up
Factors associated with sudden death or permanent pacemaker implantation
Determine factors associated with sudden death or permanent pacemaker implantation during the follow-up period overall and in each algorithm group
Measured: At 30-day follow-up
Factors associated with sudden death or permanent pacemaker implantation
Determine factors associated with sudden death or permanent pacemaker implantation during the follow-up period overall and in each algorithm group
Measured: At 1-year follow-up
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted25 Oct 2019
- Study start25 Feb 2020
- Primary completion25 Dec 2025
- Study completion25 Dec 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (11)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Conduction DisturbancesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 2,000 participants (estimated)
- Target duration
- 1 Year
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Centre de Recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Quebec
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Josep Rodes-Cabau, Centre de Recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Quebec
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04139616
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- PROMOTE
- Acronym
- PROMOTE
- Status last verified
- May 2026
- First submitted
- 21 Oct 2019
- Last updated
- 1 Jun 2026
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
Puri R, Chamandi C, Rodriguez-Gabella T, Rodes-Cabau J. Future of transcatheter aortic valve implantation - evolving clinical indications. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2018 Jan;15(1):57-65. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2017.116. Epub 2017 Aug 24.
PubMed 28836620Kolte D, Vlahakes GJ, Palacios IF, Sakhuja R, Passeri JJ, Inglessis I, Elmariah S. Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Sep 24;74(12):1532-1540. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.06.076.
PubMed 31537261Auffret V, Lefevre T, Van Belle E, Eltchaninoff H, Iung B, Koning R, Motreff P, Leprince P, Verhoye JP, Manigold T, Souteyrand G, Boulmier D, Joly P, Pinaud F, Himbert D, Collet JP, Rioufol G, Ghostine S, Bar O, Dibie A, Champagnac D, Leroux L, Collet F, Teiger E, Darremont O, Folliguet T, Leclercq F, Lhermusier T, Olhmann P, Huret B, Lorgis L, Drogoul L, Bertrand B, Spaulding C, Quilliet L, Cuisset T, Delomez M, Beygui F, Claudel JP, Hepp A, Jegou A, Gommeaux A, Mirode A, Christiaens L, Christophe C, Cassat C, Metz D, Mangin L, Isaaz K, Jacquemin L, Guyon P, Pouillot C, Makowski S, Bataille V, Rodes-Cabau J, Gilard M, Le Breton H; FRANCE TAVI Investigators. Temporal Trends in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in France: FRANCE 2 to FRANCE TAVI. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Jul 4;70(1):42-55. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.04.053.
PubMed 28662806Auffret V, Puri R, Urena M, Chamandi C, Rodriguez-Gabella T, Philippon F, Rodes-Cabau J. Conduction Disturbances After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Circulation. 2017 Sep 12;136(11):1049-1069. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.028352.
PubMed 28893961van Rosendael PJ, Delgado V, Bax JJ. Pacemaker implantation rate after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with early and new-generation devices: a systematic review. Eur Heart J. 2018 Jun 1;39(21):2003-2013. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx785.
PubMed 29420704Cerrato E, Nombela-Franco L, Nazif TM, Eltchaninoff H, Sondergaard L, Ribeiro HB, Barbanti M, Nietlispach F, De Jaegere P, Agostoni P, Trillo R, Jimenez-Quevedo P, D'Ascenzo F, Wendler O, Maluenda G, Chen M, Tamburino C, Macaya C, Leon MB, Rodes-Cabau J. Evaluation of current practices in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: The WRITTEN (WoRldwIde TAVI ExperieNce) survey. Int J Cardiol. 2017 Feb 1;228:640-647. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.104. Epub 2016 Nov 9.
PubMed 27883975Rodes-Cabau J, Ellenbogen KA, Krahn AD, Latib A, Mack M, Mittal S, Muntane-Carol G, Nazif TM, Sondergaard L, Urena M, Windecker S, Philippon F. Management of Conduction Disturbances Associated With Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: JACC Scientific Expert Panel. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 27;74(8):1086-1106. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.07.014.
PubMed 31439219Kusumoto FM, Schoenfeld MH, Barrett C, Edgerton JR, Ellenbogen KA, Gold MR, Goldschlager NF, Hamilton RM, Joglar JA, Kim RJ, Lee R, Marine JE, McLeod CJ, Oken KR, Patton KK, Pellegrini CN, Selzman KA, Thompson A, Varosy PD. 2018 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines, and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 20;74(7):932-987. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.043. Epub 2018 Nov 6. No abstract available.
PubMed 30412710Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Genereux P, Piazza N, van Mieghem NM, Blackstone EH, Brott TG, Cohen DJ, Cutlip DE, van Es GA, Hahn RT, Kirtane AJ, Krucoff MW, Kodali S, Mack MJ, Mehran R, Rodes-Cabau J, Vranckx P, Webb JG, Windecker S, Serruys PW, Leon MB. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. Eur Heart J. 2012 Oct;33(19):2403-18. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs255.
PubMed 23026477Fischer Q, Nombela-Franco L, Muntane-Carol G, Veiga G, Regueiro A, Nazif T, Serra V, Asmarats L, Ribeiro HB, Latib A, Poulin A, Cheema AN, Tirado-Conte G, Gomez-Hospital JA, Gil Ongay A, Gabani R, Arzamendi D, Brener M, Calabuig A, Scotti A, Gelain MAS, Labinaz M, Cepas-Guillen P, Cote M, Del Portillo JH, Philippon F, Rodes-Cabau J. Prophylactic Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2025 Nov;11(11):2484-2492. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2025.07.028. Epub 2025 Sep 17.
PubMed 40965381Fischer Q, Nombela-Franco L, Muntane-Carol G, Veiga G, Regueiro A, Nazif T, Serra V, Asmarats L, Ribeiro HB, Latib A, Poulin A, Cheema AN, Jimenez-Quevedo P, Gomez-Hospital JA, Gil Ongay A, Ruberti A, Arzamendi D, Brener M, Calabuig A, Scotti A, Gelain MAS, Labinaz M, Cepas-Guillen P, Cote M, Del Portillo JH, Philippon F, Rodes-Cabau J. Risk of delayed atrioventricular block in patients without procedural conduction disturbances during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Heart Rhythm. 2026 Apr;23(4):955-962. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.04.017. Epub 2025 Apr 14.
PubMed 40239910
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Jun 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Prospective Validation of a Pre-Specified Algorithm for the Management of Conduction Disturbances Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. The PROMOTE Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04139616
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PROMOTE / PROMOTE
- Conditions
- Conduction Disturbances, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement, Permanent Pacemaker Implantation
- Keywords
- atrioventricular block, complete heart block, high-degree atrioventricular block, intraventricular conduction delay, left bundle branch block, Permanent pacemaker implantation, Right bundle branch block
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 2,000 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Centre de Recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de QuebecUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 25 Feb 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 25 Dec 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 25 Dec 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 25 Oct 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The high incidence and variety of conduction disturbances post-TAVR represents a major challenge in the periprocedural management of TAVR recipients. Despite the growing body of knowledge on this topic, the large variability in the management of these complications has translated into a high degree of uncertainty regarding the most appropriate treatment of a large proportion of such patients. The implementation of a pre-specified treatment strategy translating into a more uniform practice regarding the management of conduction disturbances post-TAVR applied to a large cohort of patients would permit to identify the benefits and drawbacks of each specific aspect of the treatment algorithm proposal. This may also help to improve both the management and clinical outcomes of the complex group of patients with conduction disturbances associated with TAVR. In the end, the final objective of a pre-specified strategy for managing conduction disturbances post-TAVR should be to obtain a low rate of PPM without increasing the risk of sudden death or life threatening arrhythmic events following hospital discharge, and all this while avoiding an excessive prolongation of the hospitalization period following the TAVR procedure.
Detailed description
The objectives of the study are:
- Feasibility: to validate and determine the applicability of a pre-specified algorithm for managing conduction disturbances in consecutive patients undergoing TAVR, also evaluating the percentage of patients included in each group of the algorithm strategy.
- Efficacy: (i) to evaluate the rate of permanent pacemaker implantation in-hospital and at 30 days compared to that of the year prior to the implementation of the protocol, (ii) to determine the incidence of sudden death at 30 days and at 1-year follow-up.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Target follow-up
- 1 Year
- Number of arms
- 5
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| No ECG changes in patients without pre-existing RBBB | – | –Patients with no new conduction disturbances on the ECG performed immediately post-TAVR (and no episodes of HAVB/CHB during the procedure) have a very low risk of developing HAVB/CHB or any conduction disturbance within the hours-days following the procedure. In these cases, temporary pacing will be discontinued at the end of the procedure. However, continuous ECG monitoring until hospital discharge is recommended. A 12-lead ECG is recommended 24 hours after the procedure. If no arrhythmic episodes and no ECG changes occur within the 24 hours post-procedure, the patient can be safely discharged (the day after TAVR) with no other monitoring measures in case of otherwise uneventful clinical course (absence of other TAVR related adverse events). If the patient has to remain hospitalized because of other reasons or TAVR complications, telemetry would be recommended (but no strictly required) for the detection of post-TAVR tachyarrhythmias or late ECG changes. |
| Patients with pre-existing RBBB | – | –A temporary pacing wire is recommended to be maintained for 24 hours (or at least overnight) in all patients with prior RBBB, along with telemetry and daily ECG during the entire hospitalization period (minimum of 2 days). If any ECG changes occur during the initial 2-3 days, patients can be managed according to the proposed strategy (see management strategies for groups 3 and 5). If no ECG changes or significant bradyarrythmias occur within the 2-3 days following the procedure, the patient can be discharged. Considering that the increased risk of life threatening bradyarrhythmias in these patients may extend beyond the hospitalization period, the use of continuous ECG monitoring systems (minimum of 48 hours, up to 4 weeks) may be considered. |
| ECG changes in patients with prior conduction disturbances | – | –Any significant increase in PR or QRS interval will indicate to continuing the temporary pacing for 24 hrs, with daily ECG and telemetry for 1-2 days. If the ECG changes regress in <24 hrs, an earlier removal of the temporary pacing may be considered. Also, a strategy of multiple ECGs during the first 24 hrs may be considered. If ECG changes regress or no further changes occur the patient can be discharged with no PPM at 2 days post-TAVR. If 24 hrs post-TAVR, the PR and QRS interval remain stable but >240 or >150 ms, respectively, and ≥20 ms longer than baseline, maintaining the temporary pacing wire for another 24 hrs is recommended. If no decrease in the PR or QRS duration occurs at day 2, the patient can be considered at risk for more advanced conduction disturbances requiring PPM. The use of an EP study may be a reasonable option for deciding PPM in those patients with prior conduction disturbances with worsening of ECG changes post-TAVR |
| New-onset LBBB | – | –Temporary pacing for 24 hrs is recommended, in all patients with new-onset LBBB post-TAVR. Earlier removal of the temporary pacing and discharged at day 1 can be considered if LBBB resolves in <24 hrs. If LBBB persists but no further progression of the duration of the QRS or PR interval is observed at day 1, temporary pacing can be discontinued. If no further ECG changes are observed up to day 2-3 post-TAVR, the patient can be discharged. These patients are however at increased risk of HAVB/CHB requiring PPM, and continuous ECG monitoring and/or EP studies may be considered. If further prolongation of the QRS or PR interval is observed at day 1, the temporary pacing is recommended for an additional 24 hrs. If the prolongation of the QRS or PR intervals continues at day 2, evaluation with EP studies or PPM implantation may be considered. The occurrence of any episode of HAVB/CHB following TAVR in a patient with new-onset LBBB will be considered an indication for PPM |
| HAVB/CHB during the periprocedural period | – | –Maintaining temporary pacing in patients with procedural persistent HAVB/CHB, and monitoring in intensive care unit are recommended. If HAVB/CHB persists at 24 hrs, PPM is recommended. If HAVB/CHB recovers the day after TAVR, the temporary pacing can be removed and the patient can remain hospitalized for 1 day. If another episode of HAVB/CHB occurs, PPM is recommended. If no other episode of HAVB/CHB occurs, and no other features potentially justifying PPM exist the patient can be discharged. Temporary pacing is recommended for 24 hrs in patients with transient HAVB during the procedure, with telemetry and daily ECG for 2 days. Discontinuing temporary pacing may be considered in those cases with brief episodes of HAVB/CHB and normal ECG. If no recurrent episodes of HAVB/CHB occur, and the patient has no other potential indications for PPM the patient can be discharged at day 2. PPM would be indicated if any recurrent episode of HAVB/CHB occurs during the hospitalization period. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Patients with aortic valve disease undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement without prior permanent pacemaker
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- -Patients with aortic valve disease undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Prior permanent pacemaker
- Failure to provide signed informed consent for data collection
- Impossibility for a follow-up
- Unwillingness to follow the pre-specified strategy for the management of conduction disturbances
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Rate of successful algorithm implementation and percentage of patients in each arm of the pre-specified algorithm
Time frame: 1 year follow-up
Incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation
Time frame: At 30-day follow-up
Incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation
Time frame: At 1-year follow-up
Incidence of sudden death
Time frame: At 30-day follow-up
Incidence of sudden death
Time frame: At 1-year follow-up
13 secondary outcomes
Rate, timing of and reasons for permanent pacemaker implantation
Time frame: Before hospital discharge (between 1 to 30 days)
Rate, timing of and reasons for permanent pacemaker implantation
Time frame: At 30-day follow-up
Rate, timing of and reasons for permanent pacemaker implantation
Time frame: At 1 year follow-up
Rate and timing of sudden death
Time frame: At 30-day follow-up
Rate and timing of sudden death
Time frame: At 1-year follow-up
Evaluation of arrhythmic events in patients with continuous ECG monitoring
Time frame: After hospital discharge (up to 1-year)
Evaluation of the rate and timing of permanent pacemaker implantation
Time frame: After hospital discharge (up to 1-year)
Rate of PPI among valve types
Time frame: At 30-day follow-up
Rate of PPI among valve types
Time frame: At 1-year follow-up
Pace dependency and pacing rate
Time frame: At 30-day follow-up
Pace dependency and pacing rate
Time frame: At 1-year follow-up
Factors associated with sudden death or permanent pacemaker implantation
Time frame: At 30-day follow-up
Factors associated with sudden death or permanent pacemaker implantation
Time frame: At 1-year follow-up
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Jun 2026.
- Background: PubMed 28836620Puri R, Chamandi C, Rodriguez-Gabella T, Rodes-Cabau J. Future of transcatheter aortic valve implantation - evolving clinical indications. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2018 Jan;15(1):57-65. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2017.116. Epub 2017 Aug 24.
- Background: PubMed 31537261Kolte D, Vlahakes GJ, Palacios IF, Sakhuja R, Passeri JJ, Inglessis I, Elmariah S. Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Sep 24;74(12):1532-1540. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.06.076.
- Background: PubMed 28662806Auffret V, Lefevre T, Van Belle E, Eltchaninoff H, Iung B, Koning R, Motreff P, Leprince P, Verhoye JP, Manigold T, Souteyrand G, Boulmier D, Joly P, Pinaud F, Himbert D, Collet JP, Rioufol G, Ghostine S, Bar O, Dibie A, Champagnac D, Leroux L, Collet F, Teiger E, Darremont O, Folliguet T, Leclercq F, Lhermusier T, Olhmann P, Huret B, Lorgis L, Drogoul L, Bertrand B, Spaulding C, Quilliet L, Cuisset T, Delomez M, Beygui F, Claudel JP, Hepp A, Jegou A, Gommeaux A, Mirode A, Christiaens L, Christophe C, Cassat C, Metz D, Mangin L, Isaaz K, Jacquemin L, Guyon P, Pouillot C, Makowski S, Bataille V, Rodes-Cabau J, Gilard M, Le Breton H; FRANCE TAVI Investigators. Temporal Trends in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in France: FRANCE 2 to FRANCE TAVI. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Jul 4;70(1):42-55. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.04.053.
- Background: PubMed 28893961Auffret V, Puri R, Urena M, Chamandi C, Rodriguez-Gabella T, Philippon F, Rodes-Cabau J. Conduction Disturbances After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Circulation. 2017 Sep 12;136(11):1049-1069. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.028352.
- Background: PubMed 29420704van Rosendael PJ, Delgado V, Bax JJ. Pacemaker implantation rate after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with early and new-generation devices: a systematic review. Eur Heart J. 2018 Jun 1;39(21):2003-2013. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx785.
- Background: PubMed 27883975Cerrato E, Nombela-Franco L, Nazif TM, Eltchaninoff H, Sondergaard L, Ribeiro HB, Barbanti M, Nietlispach F, De Jaegere P, Agostoni P, Trillo R, Jimenez-Quevedo P, D'Ascenzo F, Wendler O, Maluenda G, Chen M, Tamburino C, Macaya C, Leon MB, Rodes-Cabau J. Evaluation of current practices in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: The WRITTEN (WoRldwIde TAVI ExperieNce) survey. Int J Cardiol. 2017 Feb 1;228:640-647. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.104. Epub 2016 Nov 9.
- Background: PubMed 31439219Rodes-Cabau J, Ellenbogen KA, Krahn AD, Latib A, Mack M, Mittal S, Muntane-Carol G, Nazif TM, Sondergaard L, Urena M, Windecker S, Philippon F. Management of Conduction Disturbances Associated With Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: JACC Scientific Expert Panel. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 27;74(8):1086-1106. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.07.014.
- Background: PubMed 30412710Kusumoto FM, Schoenfeld MH, Barrett C, Edgerton JR, Ellenbogen KA, Gold MR, Goldschlager NF, Hamilton RM, Joglar JA, Kim RJ, Lee R, Marine JE, McLeod CJ, Oken KR, Patton KK, Pellegrini CN, Selzman KA, Thompson A, Varosy PD. 2018 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines, and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 20;74(7):932-987. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.043. Epub 2018 Nov 6. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 23026477Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Genereux P, Piazza N, van Mieghem NM, Blackstone EH, Brott TG, Cohen DJ, Cutlip DE, van Es GA, Hahn RT, Kirtane AJ, Krucoff MW, Kodali S, Mack MJ, Mehran R, Rodes-Cabau J, Vranckx P, Webb JG, Windecker S, Serruys PW, Leon MB. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. Eur Heart J. 2012 Oct;33(19):2403-18. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs255.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 40965381Fischer Q, Nombela-Franco L, Muntane-Carol G, Veiga G, Regueiro A, Nazif T, Serra V, Asmarats L, Ribeiro HB, Latib A, Poulin A, Cheema AN, Tirado-Conte G, Gomez-Hospital JA, Gil Ongay A, Gabani R, Arzamendi D, Brener M, Calabuig A, Scotti A, Gelain MAS, Labinaz M, Cepas-Guillen P, Cote M, Del Portillo JH, Philippon F, Rodes-Cabau J. Prophylactic Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2025 Nov;11(11):2484-2492. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2025.07.028. Epub 2025 Sep 17.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 40239910Fischer Q, Nombela-Franco L, Muntane-Carol G, Veiga G, Regueiro A, Nazif T, Serra V, Asmarats L, Ribeiro HB, Latib A, Poulin A, Cheema AN, Jimenez-Quevedo P, Gomez-Hospital JA, Gil Ongay A, Ruberti A, Arzamendi D, Brener M, Calabuig A, Scotti A, Gelain MAS, Labinaz M, Cepas-Guillen P, Cote M, Del Portillo JH, Philippon F, Rodes-Cabau J. Risk of delayed atrioventricular block in patients without procedural conduction disturbances during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Heart Rhythm. 2026 Apr;23(4):955-962. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.04.017. Epub 2025 Apr 14.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Conduction Disturbances
Not yet recruiting
Systematic Ambulatory ECG Monitoring Following TAVI
Aortic Stenosis, Conduction Disturbances
Recruiting
Ambulatory Electrocardiographic Monitoring for the Detection of High-Degree Atrio-Ventricular Block in Patients With New-onset PeRsistent LEft Bundle Branch Block After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. The "MARE" Study
Aortic Valve Disease, Conduction Disturbances
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Occurrence of Severe Cardiac Rhythm and Conduction Disturbances in Emergency Department Patients With Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome
Acute Coronary Syndrome Without ST Elevation on Electrocardiogram, Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS)
RecruitingObservational study
MYLEAD Spanish Prospective Registry
Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis
Recruiting
Reversibility of Cardiac Conduction Disturbances Following TAVI
Aortic Stenosis, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Conduction Disturbances and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement, run by Centre de Recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Quebec at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Jun 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Josep Rodes-Cabau, MD (418-656-8711, josep.rodes@criucpq.ulaval.ca), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Rate of successful algorithm implementation and percentage of patients in each arm of the pre-specified algorithm (time frame: 1 year follow-up). The study lists 5 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04139616, which also lists 11 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Jun 2026.