Two‐Year Follow Up After Surgical Versus Percutaneous Paravalvular Leak Closure: A Non‐Randomized Analysis

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous closure of paravalvular leak (PVL) has emerged as an alternative treatment. Predictors of survival and procedural success are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To review our experience in the treatment of PVL and evaluate efficacy, mortality, predictors of success, and outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective review of percutaneous PVL procedures between years 2008 and 2014. Survival and results were compared with a control cohort of surgical patients. RESULTS: Percutaneous closure was attempted in 51 patients. The surgical group had 36 patients. Defects were perimitral in 67 patients (77%). Mean follow-up (FU) was 784.5 days. After propensity score analysis in-hospital mortality was higher in the surgical group (30.6% vs. 9.8%, OR 6, P 0.01). Clinical improvement was higher in the percutaneous group (71.4% vs. 36.4%, P 0.002). Multivariate analysis showed normal creatinine (OR 15, P < 0.001) as independent predictor of clinical improvement. For the composite end-point of all-cause mortality or readmission, older age (OR 10.7, P 0.001), renal failure, (OR 18, P < 0.01), poor functional class and the absence of clinical improvement (OR 3.9, P < 0.001) were related with a higher risk. There were no differences in survival free from the composite end-point according to the treatment received (surgical or percutaneous). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous PVL closure has a reasonable rate of success and low complication rates, and results compare favorably with surgical treatment. Older patients and those with poor functional class or renal failure (RF) showed a worse prognosis even after a successful closure.