Aims: The clinical impact of new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (NOP-LBBB) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) recipients remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate the impact of (i) periprocedural NOP-LBBB and PPI post-TAVR on 1-year all-cause death, cardiac death, and heart failure hospitalization and (ii) NOP-LBBB on the need for PPI at 1-year follow-up. Methods and results: We performed a systematic search from PubMed and EMBASE databases for studies reporting raw data on 1-year clinical impact of NOP-LBBB or periprocedural PPI post-TAVR. Data from 30 studies, including 7792 patients (12 studies) and 42 927 patients (21 studies) for the evaluation of the impact of NOP-LBBB and PPI after TAVR were sourced, respectively. NOP-LBBB was associated with an increased risk of all-cause death [risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17–1.49; P < 0.001], cardiac death (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.20–1.78; P < 0.001), heart failure hospitalization (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.05–1.72; P = 0.02), and PPI (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.58–2.27; P < 0.001) at 1-year follow-up. Periprocedural PPI after TAVR was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11–1.25; P < 0.001) and heart failure hospitalization (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.03–1.36; P = 0.02). Permanent pacemaker implantation was not associated with an increased risk of cardiac death (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67–1.05; P = 0.13). Conclusion: NOP-LBBB and PPI after TAVR are associated with an increased risk of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization at 1-year follow-up. Periprocedural NOP-LBBB also increased the risk of cardiac death and PPI within the year following the procedure. Further studies are urgently warranted to enhance preventive measures and optimize the management of conduction disturbances post-TAVR.

Background: Some concerns remain regarding the safety of transcarotid and transsubclavian approaches for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We aimed to compare the risk of 30‐day complications and death in transcarotid/transsubclavian versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement recipients. Methods and Results: Data from 20 studies, including 79 426 patients (16 studies) and 3992 patients (4 studies) for the evaluation of the unadjusted and adjusted impact of the arterial approach were sourced, respectively. The use of a transcarotid/transsubclavian approach was associated with an increased risk of stroke when using unadjusted data (risk ratio [RR], 2.28; 95% CI, 1.90–2.72) as well as adjusted data (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.05–2.22). The pooled results deriving from unadjusted data showed an increased risk of 30‐day death (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.22–1.74) and bleeding (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.18–1.97) in patients receiving transcatheter aortic valve replacement through a transcarotid/transsubclavian access (compared with the transfemoral group), but the associations between the arterial access and death (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.89–1.69), bleeding (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.68–1.61) were no longer significant when using adjusted data. No significant effect of the arterial access on vascular complication was observed in unadjusted (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66–1.06) and adjusted (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.53–1.17) analyses. Conclusions: Transcarotid and transsubclavian approaches for transcatheter aortic valve replacement were associated with an increased risk of stroke compared with the transfemoral approach. However, these nonfemoral arterial alternative accesses were not associated with an increased risk of 30‐day death, bleeding, or vascular complication when taking into account the confounding factors.