Why the study?
Recent large randomized controlled trials yielded differing information on which patients with heart failure and mitral regurgitation derive the largest benefit from TMVr.
Careful preprocedural evaluation of comorbidities, mitral valve anatomy, and heart function provides prognostic value for acute procedural success and long-term survival in patients undergoing TMVr for severe MR.
A growing body of evidence shows that transcatheter mitral valve edge-to-edge repair (TMVr) for mitral regurgitation (MR) improves symptoms and prognosis of patients with heart failure. Still, as recently shown by two large randomized controlled trials (COAPT and MITRA-FR), there is differing information on which patients have the largest benefit. We aimed to summarize the current knowledge of clinical and anatomic predictors for acute procedural failure and long-term all-cause mortality after TMVr. TMVr is an effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic MR fulfilling certain echocardiographic and clinical criteria or being ineligible for surgery despite optimal medical therapy. Acute procedural failure is influenced by anatomic features of the mitral valve, among those are increased tenting and mitral valve leaflet configuration, leaflet-to-annulus index, as well as the mitral valve opening area. In contrast, anatomy of the mitral valve plays a minor role in predicting all-cause mortality after TMVr. This endpoint is associated with patient comorbidities (e.g., renal failure and chronic lung disease), severe heart failure as expressed by New York Hear Association functional class (NYHA) IV, left and right heart dysfunction, laboratory parameters (NT-proBNP), clinical scoring systems (STS and EuroScore), and procedural MR reduction. In patients undergoing TMVr for severe MR, careful preprocedural evaluation of relevant comorbidities, mitral valve anatomy, as well as left and right heart function can provide detailed prognostic value regarding acute procedural success and long-term survival.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stolz et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: