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

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 -