Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Dec 24;62(25):2370-2377. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.093. Epub 2013 Sep 4.

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

Author information

1
National Institute Health Research Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
2
Division of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: owfranzen@gmx.de.
3
Unit for Interventional Cardiology, Department of Cardiology, Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
4
Division of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

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.

KEYWORDS:

2-dimensional; 2D; 3-dimensional; 3D; LV; MR; MV; NYHA; New York Heart Association; TEE; catheter-based-therapy; dMR; degenerative mitral regurgitation; heart valves; left ventricular; mitral regurgitation; mitral valve; transesophageal echocardiography

PMID:
24013059
DOI:
10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.093
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center