Key result
Percutaneous mitral clip repair yielded a higher rate of freedom from death, required surgery, and significant MR at 6 months compared to conventional surgery (79% vs 60%, P=0.020).
Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare surgical repair with mitral clip repair for severe secondary mitral regurgitation after failure of maximum medical treatment.
Does percutaneous mitral valve repair by clip improve clinical outcomes and safety compared to conventional surgery in patients with severe secondary mitral regurgitation and left ventricular dysfunction?
Cohort (n=60)
Does percutaneous mitral valve repair by clip improve clinical outcomes and safety compared to conventional surgery in patients with severe secondary mitral regurgitation and left ventricular dysfunction?
Absolute Event Rate: 79% vs 60%
p-value: p=0.020
Percutaneous mitral clip repair demonstrated superior safety and efficacy at 6 months compared to conventional surgery in patients with severe secondary mitral regurgitation and left ventricular dysfunction.
Background: Mitral-valve repair can be accomplished with a procedure that involves the percutaneous implantation of a clip that grasps and approximates the edges of the mitral leaflets at the origin of the regurgitate jet. Objective: Our study was performed to compare surgical repair and mitral clip repair for severe secondary MR after failure of maximum medical treatment. Patients and methods: We none randomly were sixty patients with moderately severe or severe (grade 3+ or 4+) mitral regurgitation, 30 patients underwent percutaneous repair by clip and 30 patients underwent conventional surgery for repair of the mitral valve. The primary composite end point for efficacy was freedom from death, required surgery for mitral valve dysfunction (stenosis or regurgitation), and absence of significant MR (grade 3+ or 4+) at 6 months follow up. Results: At 6 months, the rates of the primary end point for efficacy were 79% in the percutaneous repair group and 60% in the surgery group (P = 0.020). The respective rates of the components of the primary end point were as follows: death, 6.9%versus 25%, required surgery for mitral-valve dysfunction, 6.9% versus 10.7%; and significant MR, 16% versus 33%. Major adverse events occurred in 20% of patients in the percutaneous-repair group and 50% of patients in the surgery group at 30 days (P<0.001). Conclusions: Percutaneous treatment was associated with increased safety, improved left ventricular volumes, clinical improvements in NYHA classes and quality of life.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mahmoud et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Secondary mitral regurgitation (n=60). Percutaneous repair by mitral clip vs. Conventional surgery was evaluated on Freedom from death, required surgery for mitral valve dysfunction, and absence of significant MR at 6 months (p=0.020). Percutaneous mitral clip repair yielded a higher rate of freedom from death, required surgery, and significant MR at 6 months compared to conventional surgery (79% vs 60%, P=0.020).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: