Key result
Sole TEE-guided M-TEER shows similar 1-year outcomes compared to combined fluoroscopy and TEE guidance.
Why the study?
A simplified M-TEER workflow under sole TEE guidance without fluoroscopy has been developed, but its real-world outcomes compared to conventional combined guidance procedures were unclear.
Does simplified M-TEER under sole-TEE guidance result in similar outcomes compared to conventional combined fluoroscopy and TEE guidance?
Cohort (n=386)
Does simplified M-TEER under sole-TEE guidance result in similar outcomes compared to conventional combined fluoroscopy and TEE guidance?
Hazard Ratio: 0.93 (95% CI 0.48–1.81)
Absolute Event Rate: 11.3% vs 11.3%
p-value: p=>0.05
Performing M-TEER under sole-TEE guidance without fluoroscopy is a feasible simplified workflow that yields procedural and clinical outcomes comparable to conventional combined guidance in experienced centers.
OBJECTIVE A simplified mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER) workflow under sole transesophageal echocardiographic (TEE) guidance, without fluoroscopy, has been developed. This study aimed to compare its real-world outcomes with the conventional procedures under the combined guidance of fluoroscopy and TEE. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 386 patients undergoing M-TEER between January 2021 and December 2025, including 286 in the Sole-TEE guidance group and 100 in the Combined guidance group. The primary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and a composite of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization. Propensity score matching and overlap weighting were performed as sensitivity analyses. RESULTS Technical success was achieved in 98.3% and 97.0% of patients in the Sole-TEE and Combined guidance groups, respectively, and 30-day major adverse events occurred in 2.8% and 7.0%, respectively (p > 0.05). The median follow-up was 16.5 months. At 1 year, the estimated cumulative incidence rates of the three primary endpoints were 4.4%, 6.0%, and 11.3% in the Sole-TEE guidance group and 6.4%, 8.5%, and 11.3% in the Combined guidance group, respectively (p > 0.05). M-TEER failure at 1 year was 4.8% and 6.3%, respectively (p > 0.05). The corresponding adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for the three primary endpoints were 1.52 (0.61-3.79), 0.96 (0.42-2.18), and 0.93 (0.48-1.81), respectively. Findings were consistent in sensitivity and subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS In this real-world observational cohort, M-TEER performed under sole-TEE guidance was associated with favorable procedural and follow-up outcomes, supporting the feasibility of this simplified workflow in experienced centers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Mitral valve disease requiring transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (n=386). Simplified mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER) under sole transesophageal echocardiographic (TEE) guidance vs. Conventional M-TEER under combined guidance of fluoroscopy and TEE was evaluated on Composite of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.48-1.81, p=>0.05). Simplified M-TEER under sole TEE guidance was associated with similar 1-year rates of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization compared to combined guidance (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.48-1.81).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: