Smartwatch-Detected Arrhythmias in Patients After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): Analysis of the SMART TAVR Trial

• Main Authors: Jiaqi Fan (Author), Hanyi Dai (Author), Yuchao Guo (Author), Jianguo Xu (Author), Lihan Wang (Author), Jubo Jiang (Author), Xinping Lin (Author), Cheng Li (Author), Dao Zhou (Author), Huajun Li (Author), Xianbao Liu (Author), Jian'an Wang (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: JMIR Publications, 2024-07-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 1438-8871; 10.2196/41843
• Keywords: Computer applications to medicine. Medical informatics; R858-859.7; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270
• Source: Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol 26, p e41843 (2024)

BackgroundThere are limited data available on the development of arrhythmias in patients at risk of high-degree atrioventricular block (HAVB) or complete heart block (CHB) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the incidence and evolution of arrhythmias by monitoring patients at risk of HAVB or CHB after TAVR using smartwatches. MethodsWe analyzed 188 consecutive patients in the prospective SMART TAVR (smartwatch-facilitated early discharge in patients undergoing TAVR) trial. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the risk of HAVB or CHB. Patients were required to trigger a single-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) recording and send it to the Heart Health App via their smartphone. Physicians in the central ECG core lab would then analyze the ECG. The incidence and timing of arrhythmias and pacemaker implantation within a 30-day follow-up were compared. All arrhythmic events were adjudicated in a central ECG core lab. ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 73.1 (SD 7.3) years, of whom 105 (55.9%) were men. The mean discharge day after TAVR was 2.0 (SD 1.8) days. There were no statistically significant changes in the evolution of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, Mobitz I, Mobitz II, and third-degree atrial ventricular block over time in the first month after TAVR. The incidence of the left bundle branch block (LBBB) increased in the first week and decreased in the subsequent 3 weeks significantly (P<.001). Patients at higher risk of HAVB or CHB received more pacemaker implantation after discharge (n=8, 9.6% vs n=2, 1.9%; P=.04). The incidence of LBBB was higher in the group with higher HAVB or CHB risk (n=47, 56.6% vs n=34, 32.4%; P=.001). The independent predictors for pacemaker implantation were age, baseline atrial fibrillation, baseline right bundle branch block, Mobitz II, and third-degree atrioventricular block detected by the smartwatch. ConclusionsExcept for LBBB, no change in arrhythmias was observed over time in the first month after TAVR. A higher incidence of pacemaker implantation after discharge was observed in patients at risk of HAVB or CHB. However, Mobitz II and third-degree atrioventricular block detected by the smartwatch during follow-ups were more valuable indicators to predict pacemaker implantation after discharge from the index TAVR. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04454177; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04454177