Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 1, 2026

Upper-extremity Approach for Secondary Access in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Published on: August 8, 2025
Left Ventricular Rapid Pacing Via the Valve Delivery Guidewire in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Benjamin Faurie1, Géraud Souteyrand2, Patrick Staat3
1Institut Cardiovasculaire, Groupe Hospitalier Mutualiste de Grenoble, Grenoble, France; Cardiology Department, Médipole HP Lyon-Villeurbane, Villeurbane, France.
Objectives:
This study investigated whether left ventricular (LV) stimulation via a guidewire-reduced procedure duration while maintaining efficacy and safety compared with standard right ventricular (RV) stimulation.
Background:
Rapid ventricular pacing is necessary to ensure cardiac standstill during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).
Methods:
This is a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, superiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR with a SAPIEN valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) were allocated to LV or RV stimulation. The primary endpoint was procedure duration. Secondary endpoints included efficacy, safety, and cost at 30 days.
Results:
Between May 2017 and May 2018, 307 patients were randomized, but 4 were excluded because they did not receive the intended treatment: 303 patients were analyzed in the LV (n = 151) or RV (n = 152) stimulation groups. Mean procedure duration was significantly shorter in the LV stimulation group (48.4 ± 16.9 min vs. 55.6 ± 26.9 min; p = 0.0013), with a difference of -0.12 (95% confidence interval: -0.20 to -0.05) in the log-transformed procedure duration (p = 0.0012). Effective stimulation was similar in the LV and RV stimulation groups: 124 (84.9%) versus 128 (87.1%) (p = 0.60). Safety of stimulation was also similar in the LV and RV stimulation groups: procedural success occurred in 151 (100%) versus 151 (99.3%) patients (p = 0.99); 30-day MACE-TAVR (major adverse cardiovascular event-transcatheter aortic valve replacement) occurred in 21 (13.9%) versus 26 (17.1%) patients (p = 0.44); fluoroscopy time (min) was lower in the LV stimulation group (13.48 ± 5.98 vs. 14.60 ± 5.59; p = 0.02), as was cost (€18,807 ± 1,318 vs. €19,437 ± 2,318; p = 0.001).
Conclusions:
Compared with RV stimulation, LV stimulation during TAVR was associated with significantly reduced procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and cost, with similar efficacy and safety. (Direct Left Ventricular Rapid Pacing Via the Valve Delivery Guide-wire in TAVR [EASY TAVI]; NCT02781896).
More Related Videos
05:31Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Replacement from Autologous Pericardium with a Self-Expandable Nitinol Stent in an Adult Sheep Model
Published on: June 8, 2022
12:45Benefits of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in an Asynchronous Heart Failure Model Induced by Left Bundle Branch Ablation and Rapid Pacing
Published on: December 11, 2017
Related Concept Videos
Cardiac Catheterization III: Left Heart Catheterization
Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management