Incidence of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation after SAVR: A Comparison between Semi-Continuous and Interrupted Suturing Techniques at Peshawar Institute of Cardiology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i4.2320Keywords:
Interrupted Suturing, Permanent Pacemaker Implantation, Semi-continuous Sutures, Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.Abstract
Objectives: To compare the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation between semi-continuous and interrupted suturing techniques after SAVR. Study design: Retrospective cohort study. Place and duration of study: Peshawar Institute of Cardiology, from January 2022 to December 2024. Methods: A total of 196 patients undergoing isolated SAVR were included in this study using hospital’s electronic medical record. Based on suturing technique, patients were divided into SCS Group (semi-continuous suturing group) (n=81) and IS Group (interrupted suturing group) (n=115). All the relevant demographics, clinical characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome was set as the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation in the two groups within 30 days following the procedure. The primary outcomes were compared by applying the Fisher’s Exact Test, considering a p-value <0.05 as statistically significant. Results: Mean age of patients was 54.4 ± 6.9 years with 76% males in overall study population. Permanent pacemaker implantation occurred in 3 patients (2.6%) in the interrupted group, while no case was reported (0%) in the semi-continuous group and the difference did not reach statistical significance (Fisher’s Exact Test, p=0.28). Indications for implantation of three permanent pacemaker in the interrupted group were complete heart block (66.6%) and high-grade atrioventricular block (33.33%). Conclusion: Both suturing techniques were associated with a low/no incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation after SAVR, with no significant difference observed between two techniques. Selection of suturing technique may therefore be guided by surgeon/ institution own preference and operative considerations.
Downloads
References
1. Davalan, W., Ben Ali, W., Mrad, S., & Noly, P. (2025). What are SAVR indications in the TAVI era? Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(7), 2357.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14072357
2. Vahanian, A., Beyersdorf, F., Praz, F., Milojevic, M., Baldus, S., Bauersachs, J., Capodanno, D., Conradi, L., De Bonis, M., De Paulis, R., Delgado, V., Freemantle, N., Haugaa, K. H., Jeppsson, A., Jüni, P., Pierard, L., Prendergast, B. P., Sádaba, J. S., Tribouilloy, C., … Wojakowski, W. (2022). 2021 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. EuroIntervention, 17(14), e1126-e1196.
https://doi.org/10.4244/eij-e-21-00009
3. El Diasty, M., Davies, M., Fernandez, A. L., Ribeiro, I., Payne, D., & Petsikas, D. (2022). Does Pacemaker Implantation After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Impact Long-Term Morbidity and Mortality? A Focused Review. Texas Heart Institute Journal, 49(5).
https://doi.org/10.14503/THIJ-20-7518
4. Swift, S. L., Puehler, T., Misso, K., Lang, S. H., Forbes, C., Kleijnen, J., Danner, M., Kuhn, C., Haneya, A., Seoudy, H., Cremer, J., Frey, N., Lutter, G., Wolff, R., Scheibler, F., Wehkamp, K., & Frank, D. (2021). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open, 11(12), e054222.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054222
5. Rennert-May, E., Chew, D., Cannon, K., Zhang, Z., Smith, S., King, T., Exner, D. V., Larios, O. E., & Leal, J. (2023). The economic burden of cardiac implantable electronic device infections in Alberta, Canada: A population-based study using validated administrative data. Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, 12(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-023-01347-4
6. DeFilippis, E. M., Batra, J., Donald, E., Rubin, G., Jou, S., Razzaq, A., Wan, E. Y., Garan, H., Takeda, K., Sayer, G., Uriel, N., Topkara, V. K., Biviano, A., & Yarmohammadi, H. (2023). Long-term outcomes of permanent pacemaker implantation in Bicaval heart transplant recipients. JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology, 9(9), 1964-1971.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2023.05.020
7. Gopal, S., Hauser, J. M., & Mahboobi, S. K. (2022). Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement. PubMed; StatPearls Publishing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK564339/
8. Wilczek, K., Reguła, R., Bujak, K., Chodór, P., Długaszek, M., & Gąsior, M. (2016). Conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures – predictors and management. Advances in Interventional Cardiology, 3, 203-211.
https://doi.org/10.5114/aic.2016.61640
9. Kitamura, T., Edwards, J., & Miyaji, K. (2017). Continuous suture technique for aortic valve replacement shortens cross-clamp and bypass times. Texas Heart Institute Journal, 44(6), 390-394.
https://doi.org/10.14503/thij-16-5886
10. Arabkhani, B., Gonthier, S., Lorenz, V., Deschamps, S., Jahanyar, J., Boute, M., Vancraeynest, D., Mastrobuoni, S., Khoury, G. E., & De Kerchove, L. (2024). Continuous or interrupted pledgeted suture technique in stented bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: A comparison of in-hospital outcomes. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 19(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-024-02754-3
11. Sen, O., Kadirogullari, E., Aydin, U., Guler, S., & Haydin, S. (2018). Comparison of continuous and interrupted suturing techniques in ventricular septal defect closure. The Heart Surgery Forum, 21(5), E418-E422.
https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.2045
12. Bilal, Y., Rahman, U. U., Iqbal, A., Rizwanullah, Zaib, S., & Nasir, A. (2025). Comparison of semi-continuous technique and interrupted technique for replacing mitral valve replacement (MVR) in terms of cross-clamp time. The Professional Medical Journal, 32(06), 684-688.
https://doi.org/10.29309/tpmj/2025.32.06.8795
13. Ali, M., Sinha, L., Solanki, H., Geelani, M. A., & Satyarthi, S. (2022). Semi-Continuous versus Interrupted Suture Techniques for Mitral Valve Replacement: A Prospective Postoperative Analysis. Indian Journal of Basic and Applied Medical Research, 11(3), 48-56.
https://www.ijbamr.com/assets/images/issues/pdf/3m0y5S_UgYJGz_82uF49_W41Cpg_921897.pdf
14. Ahmed, H, O., & Meselhy, M. M. A. (2022). Comparative study between semicontinuous and interrupted aortic valve replacement regarding post-operative permanent pacemaker requirement. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 29(3), 2277-84.
https://jptcp.com/index.php/jptcp/article/view/11387
15. Soliman, R., Salim, S. S., Baangood, L. S., Alnajjar, A., & Abdelrehim, A. R. (2021). Interrupted versus continuous suture technique for ventricular septal defects surgical closure. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 84(1), 1690-1695.
https://doi.org/10.21608/ejhm.2021.175731
16. Datta, G. (2019). Pacemaker pocket infection rate and suture technique. Turk Kardiyoloji Dernegi Arsivi-Archives of the Turkish Society of Cardiology, 48(1), 44–48.
https://doi.org/10.5543/tkda.2019.82598
17. Ayık, M. F., Şişli, E., Dereli, M., Şahan, Y. Ö., Şahin, H., Levent, R. E., & Atay, Y. (2018). A Retrospective Survey Comparing Suture Techniques Regarding the Risk of Permanent Epicardial Pacemaker Implantation After Ventricular Septal Defect Closure. Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, 33(4).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Indus Journal of Bioscience Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
