Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of central versus noncentral percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of degenerative mitral regurgitation

Rodrigo Estévez-Loureiro; Olaf Franzen; Reidar Winter; Lars Sondergaard; Per Jacobsen; Gary Cheung; Neil Moat; Nikolaj Ihlemann; Matteo Ghione; Susanna Price; Alison Duncan; Tine Streit Rosenberg; Sarah Barker; Carlo Di Mario; Magnus Settergren

doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.093

Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of central versus noncentral percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of degenerative mitral regurgitation

Bidragets oversatte titel: Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of central versus noncentral percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of degenerative mitral regurgitation

Rodrigo Estévez-Loureiro, Olaf Franzen, Reidar Winter, Lars Sondergaard, Per Jacobsen, Gary Cheung, Neil Moat, Nikolaj Ihlemann, Matteo Ghione, Susanna Price, Alison Duncan, Tine Streit Rosenberg, Sarah Barker, Carlo Di Mario, Magnus Settergren

LUKKET: Institut for Lægemiddeldesign og Farmakologi

39 Citationer (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives This study aimed to assess the clinical and echocardiographic results of MitraClip implantation in noncentral degenerative mitral regurgitation (dMR) compared with central dMR. Background It is unknown whether the use of MitraClip therapy in noncentral dMR is as safe and effective as in central dMR. Methods We analyzed a multicenter registry of 173 patients treated with the MitraClip and compared results of central and noncentral dMR. Results Seventy-nine patients (age 79.2 ± 8.0 years, 58.2% men) had dMR. Forty-nine patients (62%) had central dMR, with the remainder classified as noncentral dMR (n = 30, 38%). Patients with noncentral dMR had a wider pre-procedural vena contracta (8.5 ± 2.0 mm vs. 6.9 ± 2.2 mm, p = 0.039) and higher systolic pulmonary pressure (57.9 ± 18.0 vs. 47.3 ± 13.0 mm Hg, p = 0.019). Procedural success was the same in both groups (95.5% central vs. 96.7% noncentral, p = 0.866). Post-procedural MR and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class at 1 month (MR ≤2, 96.0% vs. 96.6%, p = 0.866, and NYHA functional class ≤II, 81.6% vs. 90.0%, p = 0.335) and 6 months (95.2% central vs. 91.7% noncentral, p = 0.679; and NYHA functional class >II, 21.1% vs. 0%, p = 0.128) did not differ between groups. There were also no differences in serious post-procedural adverse events: partial clip detachment (central n = 1 [2.0%] vs. noncentral n = 1 [3.3%], p = 1.000), death (5.4% central vs. 13.0% noncentral, p = 0.298), or heart failure admission (10.8% central vs. 8.7% noncentral, p = 0.791). Conclusions In experienced centers, MitraClip treatment can be performed safely and effectively in both central and noncentral dMR.

Bidragets oversatte titel	Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of central versus noncentral percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of degenerative mitral regurgitation
Originalsprog	Engelsk
Tidsskrift	Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Vol/bind	62
Udgave nummer	25
Sider (fra-til)	2370-2377
Antal sider	8
ISSN	0735-1097
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.093
Status	Udgivet - 24 dec. 2013

Adgang til dokumentet

10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.093

Citationsformater

Estévez-Loureiro, R., Franzen, O., Winter, R., Sondergaard, L., Jacobsen, P., Cheung, G., Moat, N., Ihlemann, N., Ghione, M., Price, S., Duncan, A., Streit Rosenberg, T., Barker, S., Di Mario, C., & Settergren, M. (2013). Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of central versus noncentral percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of degenerative mitral regurgitation. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 62(25), 2370-2377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.093

Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of central versus noncentral percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of degenerative mitral regurgitation. / Estévez-Loureiro, Rodrigo; Franzen, Olaf; Winter, Reidar et al.
I: Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Bind 62, Nr. 25, 24.12.2013, s. 2370-2377.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › peer review

Estévez-Loureiro, R, Franzen, O, Winter, R, Sondergaard, L, Jacobsen, P, Cheung, G, Moat, N, Ihlemann, N, Ghione, M, Price, S, Duncan, A, Streit Rosenberg, T, Barker, S, Di Mario, C & Settergren, M 2013, 'Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of central versus noncentral percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of degenerative mitral regurgitation', Journal of the American College of Cardiology, bind 62, nr. 25, s. 2370-2377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.093

@article{56b8c65219c3467fb7eedd3c6c46abea,

title = "Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of central versus noncentral percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of degenerative mitral regurgitation",

abstract = "Objectives This study aimed to assess the clinical and echocardiographic results of MitraClip implantation in noncentral degenerative mitral regurgitation (dMR) compared with central dMR. Background It is unknown whether the use of MitraClip therapy in noncentral dMR is as safe and effective as in central dMR. Methods We analyzed a multicenter registry of 173 patients treated with the MitraClip and compared results of central and noncentral dMR. Results Seventy-nine patients (age 79.2 ± 8.0 years, 58.2% men) had dMR. Forty-nine patients (62%) had central dMR, with the remainder classified as noncentral dMR (n = 30, 38%). Patients with noncentral dMR had a wider pre-procedural vena contracta (8.5 ± 2.0 mm vs. 6.9 ± 2.2 mm, p = 0.039) and higher systolic pulmonary pressure (57.9 ± 18.0 vs. 47.3 ± 13.0 mm Hg, p = 0.019). Procedural success was the same in both groups (95.5% central vs. 96.7% noncentral, p = 0.866). Post-procedural MR and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class at 1 month (MR ≤2, 96.0% vs. 96.6%, p = 0.866, and NYHA functional class ≤II, 81.6% vs. 90.0%, p = 0.335) and 6 months (95.2% central vs. 91.7% noncentral, p = 0.679; and NYHA functional class >II, 21.1% vs. 0%, p = 0.128) did not differ between groups. There were also no differences in serious post-procedural adverse events: partial clip detachment (central n = 1 [2.0%] vs. noncentral n = 1 [3.3%], p = 1.000), death (5.4% central vs. 13.0% noncentral, p = 0.298), or heart failure admission (10.8% central vs. 8.7% noncentral, p = 0.791). Conclusions In experienced centers, MitraClip treatment can be performed safely and effectively in both central and noncentral dMR.",

author = "Rodrigo Est{\'e}vez-Loureiro and Olaf Franzen and Reidar Winter and Lars Sondergaard and Per Jacobsen and Gary Cheung and Neil Moat and Nikolaj Ihlemann and Matteo Ghione and Susanna Price and Alison Duncan and {Streit Rosenberg}, Tine and Sarah Barker and {Di Mario}, Carlo and Magnus Settergren",

year = "2013",

month = dec,

day = "24",

doi = "10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.093",

language = "English",

volume = "62",

pages = "2370--2377",

journal = "Journal of the American College of Cardiology",

issn = "0735-1097",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "25",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of central versus noncentral percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of degenerative mitral regurgitation

AU - Estévez-Loureiro, Rodrigo

AU - Franzen, Olaf

AU - Winter, Reidar

AU - Sondergaard, Lars

AU - Jacobsen, Per

AU - Cheung, Gary

AU - Moat, Neil

AU - Ihlemann, Nikolaj

AU - Ghione, Matteo

AU - Price, Susanna

AU - Duncan, Alison

AU - Streit Rosenberg, Tine

AU - Barker, Sarah

AU - Di Mario, Carlo

AU - Settergren, Magnus

PY - 2013/12/24

Y1 - 2013/12/24

N2 - Objectives This study aimed to assess the clinical and echocardiographic results of MitraClip implantation in noncentral degenerative mitral regurgitation (dMR) compared with central dMR. Background It is unknown whether the use of MitraClip therapy in noncentral dMR is as safe and effective as in central dMR. Methods We analyzed a multicenter registry of 173 patients treated with the MitraClip and compared results of central and noncentral dMR. Results Seventy-nine patients (age 79.2 ± 8.0 years, 58.2% men) had dMR. Forty-nine patients (62%) had central dMR, with the remainder classified as noncentral dMR (n = 30, 38%). Patients with noncentral dMR had a wider pre-procedural vena contracta (8.5 ± 2.0 mm vs. 6.9 ± 2.2 mm, p = 0.039) and higher systolic pulmonary pressure (57.9 ± 18.0 vs. 47.3 ± 13.0 mm Hg, p = 0.019). Procedural success was the same in both groups (95.5% central vs. 96.7% noncentral, p = 0.866). Post-procedural MR and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class at 1 month (MR ≤2, 96.0% vs. 96.6%, p = 0.866, and NYHA functional class ≤II, 81.6% vs. 90.0%, p = 0.335) and 6 months (95.2% central vs. 91.7% noncentral, p = 0.679; and NYHA functional class >II, 21.1% vs. 0%, p = 0.128) did not differ between groups. There were also no differences in serious post-procedural adverse events: partial clip detachment (central n = 1 [2.0%] vs. noncentral n = 1 [3.3%], p = 1.000), death (5.4% central vs. 13.0% noncentral, p = 0.298), or heart failure admission (10.8% central vs. 8.7% noncentral, p = 0.791). Conclusions In experienced centers, MitraClip treatment can be performed safely and effectively in both central and noncentral dMR.

AB - Objectives This study aimed to assess the clinical and echocardiographic results of MitraClip implantation in noncentral degenerative mitral regurgitation (dMR) compared with central dMR. Background It is unknown whether the use of MitraClip therapy in noncentral dMR is as safe and effective as in central dMR. Methods We analyzed a multicenter registry of 173 patients treated with the MitraClip and compared results of central and noncentral dMR. Results Seventy-nine patients (age 79.2 ± 8.0 years, 58.2% men) had dMR. Forty-nine patients (62%) had central dMR, with the remainder classified as noncentral dMR (n = 30, 38%). Patients with noncentral dMR had a wider pre-procedural vena contracta (8.5 ± 2.0 mm vs. 6.9 ± 2.2 mm, p = 0.039) and higher systolic pulmonary pressure (57.9 ± 18.0 vs. 47.3 ± 13.0 mm Hg, p = 0.019). Procedural success was the same in both groups (95.5% central vs. 96.7% noncentral, p = 0.866). Post-procedural MR and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class at 1 month (MR ≤2, 96.0% vs. 96.6%, p = 0.866, and NYHA functional class ≤II, 81.6% vs. 90.0%, p = 0.335) and 6 months (95.2% central vs. 91.7% noncentral, p = 0.679; and NYHA functional class >II, 21.1% vs. 0%, p = 0.128) did not differ between groups. There were also no differences in serious post-procedural adverse events: partial clip detachment (central n = 1 [2.0%] vs. noncentral n = 1 [3.3%], p = 1.000), death (5.4% central vs. 13.0% noncentral, p = 0.298), or heart failure admission (10.8% central vs. 8.7% noncentral, p = 0.791). Conclusions In experienced centers, MitraClip treatment can be performed safely and effectively in both central and noncentral dMR.

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.093

DO - 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.093

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 24013059

SN - 0735-1097

VL - 62

SP - 2370

EP - 2377

JO - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

IS - 25

ER -

Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of central versus noncentral percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of degenerative mitral regurgitation

Abstract

Adgang til dokumentet

Fingeraftryk

Citationsformater