Key result
In 6 patients requiring surgery after failed MitraClip therapy, secondary surgical mitral valve repair was feasible in 3, while prior clip injury necessitated valve replacement in 2 patients.
Why the study?
Is secondary surgical mitral valve repair feasible after failed trans-catheter MitraClip therapy in high-risk patients?
Observational (n=215)
Is secondary surgical mitral valve repair feasible after failed trans-catheter MitraClip therapy in high-risk patients?
Failed MitraClip therapy can complicate subsequent surgical mitral valve repair, sometimes necessitating valve replacement, suggesting caution in expanding trans-catheter MVR to lower-risk patients.
Failed MitraClip may complicate subsequent repair; hypothesis-generating for surgical outcomes in larger cohorts.
OBJECTIVE: Conventional or minimally invasive surgical mitral valve repair (MVR) is the gold-standard treatment for severe mitral regurgitation (MR) of any etiology. Given its good safety profile, trans-catheter MVR with the MitraClip™ device is used increasingly for high-risk or inoperable patients. We report our experience with failed MitraClip™ therapy and its impact on subsequent surgical strategies, such as the feasibility of MVR in high-risk patients. METHODS: During a follow-up of 344 ± 227 days from the first 215 consecutive patients treated with the MitraClip™ device, six patients required surgical re-intervention due to failed repair (n = 3) or recurrent severe MR (n = 3) at 35.8 ± 47.7 (range 0-117) days after trans-catheter MVR. Feasibility of secondary surgical MVR was assessed with regard to prior clip therapy. RESULTS: In three patients, secondary surgical MVR was successfully performed following the surgical strategy deemed optimal before trans-catheter treatment. Injury of the mitral leaflets caused by prior clip treatment was present in three other patients and influenced the surgical strategy toward more complex surgical techniques in one case and MV replacement in two others. One patient died 6 days after MV replacement. All other patients are alive with adequate valve function at the latest follow-up of 12.4 ± 7.4 months (range 4-22). CONCLUSIONS: Secondary surgical MVR was feasible in some patients after prior clip treatment, but led to valve replacement in others. At present, patient selection criteria for trans-catheter MVR should not be expanded toward more healthy patients, as primary trans-catheter MVR may complicate secondary surgery in certain cases and may even preclude reconstructive valve surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Conradi et al. (2011) conducted an observational in severe mitral regurgitation (n=215). MitraClip therapy was evaluated on Feasibility of secondary surgical mitral valve repair. In 6 patients requiring surgery after failed MitraClip therapy, secondary surgical mitral valve repair was feasible in 3, while prior clip injury necessitated valve replacement in 2 patients.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: