Key result
MitraClip therapy was associated with a higher risk of recurrence of MR ≥ 2+ compared to surgical edge-to-edge repair (HR 2.1; 95% CI 1.1-3.9; P=0.02) at a median follow-up of 4 years.
Why the study?
Does percutaneous edge-to-edge repair (MitraClip) compared to surgical edge-to-edge repair improve clinical and echocardiographic outcomes in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and secondary mitral regurgitation?
Cohort (n=120)
No
Does percutaneous edge-to-edge repair (MitraClip) compared to surgical edge-to-edge repair improve clinical and echocardiographic outcomes in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and secondary mitral regurgitation?
In patients with severe LV dysfunction and secondary MR, surgical edge-to-edge repair provides superior mid-term efficacy in reducing MR recurrence compared to MitraClip, although both approaches yield similar rates of freedom from cardiac death.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports caution with MitraClip due to higher MR recurrence; leaves open need for RCTs to confirm durability in severe LV dysfunction.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the surgical and percutaneous edge-to-edge (EE) repair in patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and secondary mitral regurgitation (MR). METHODS: We reviewed the prospectively collected data of the first 120 consecutive patients (age: 65 ± 9.8 years, EF: 28 ± 8.2%) treated with surgical (65 patients) or percutaneous (55 patients) EE repair for severe secondary MR in our institution. Age (P = 0.005) and logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (P < 0.0001) were significantly higher in the MitraClip group. LVEF (P = 0.37), end-diastolic (P = 0.83) and end-systolic (P = 0.68) volumes and systolic pulmonary artery pressure (SPAP) (P = 0.58) were similar. The follow-up was 100% complete [median: 4 years; interquartile range (IQR): 2.2-7.2]. RESULTS: The length of hospital stay was 10 days (IQR: 8-13) for surgery and 5 days (IQR: 3.9-7.8) for MitraClip (P < 0.0001). Hospital mortality (3 vs 0%, P = 0.49) and freedom from cardiac death at 4 years (80.8 ± 4.9% vs 79.1 ± 5.9%, P = 0.9) were not significantly different in the surgical and MitraClip group, respectively. Residual MR ≥ 2+ at hospital discharge was 7.6% for surgery and 29% for MitraClip (P = 0.002). At 4 years, freedom from MR ≥ 2+ (74.9 ± 5.6% vs 51.4 ± 7.4%, P = 0.01) and freedom from MR ≥ 3+ (92.8 ± 3.4% vs 68.1 ± 7%, P = 0.002) were both significantly higher in the surgical group. Multivariate analysis identified the use of MitraClip as an independent predictor of recurrence of MR ≥ 2+ [Hazard ratio (HR): 2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1-3.9, P = 0.02] as well as of MR ≥ 3 (HR: 6.1, 95% CI: 1.5-24.3, P = 0.01). In the surgical group, no predictors of cardiac mortality were identified. In the MitraClip group, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (HR: 1.1, 95% CI: 1-1.2, P = 0.005) and SPAP (HR: 1, 95% CI: 1-1.1, P = 0.005) were independent predictors of cardiac death at the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: MitraClip therapy is a safe therapeutic option in selected high-risk patients with secondary MR and relevant comorbidities. The surgical EE provides higher efficacy both postoperatively and at the mid-term follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bonis et al. (2015) conducted a cohort in Severe left ventricular dysfunction and secondary mitral regurgitation (n=120). MitraClip (percutaneous edge-to-edge repair) vs. Surgical edge-to-edge repair was evaluated on Recurrence of MR ≥ 2+ (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-3.9, p=0.02). MitraClip therapy was associated with a higher risk of recurrence of MR ≥ 2+ compared to surgical edge-to-edge repair (HR 2.1; 95% CI 1.1-3.9; P=0.02) at a median follow-up of 4 years.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: