AIMS: We explored the immediate and long-term outcome of redo percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty (PMV) in a series of patients with mitral restenosis in comparison with initial PMV in the same series. METHODS: We enrolled 40 consecutive patients presenting with mitral restenosis after successful initial PMV. Redo PMV was performed by the antegrade transseptal approach using either the Inoue technique or the multitrack technique. Reassessment by transthoracic echocardiography was repeated 48 hours later, and annually thereafter. Procedural success was defined as 50% or more increase of mitral valve area (MVA) with a final MVA >or=1.5 cm(2), without major complications. Restenosis was defined as loss of >50% of the initial gain of MVA by the preceding PMV with a final MVA <1.5 cm(2). RESULTS: Procedural success was achieved in 37 (92.5%) patients. Both the initial and redo procedures were similar concerning the final MVA and mean transmitral pressure gradient (P > 0.05 for all). The gain of MVA was higher in the initial as compared to the redo procedure (P < 0.001). The initial mitral valve score correlated negatively with the final MVA in both the initial and redo procedures, and was the only independent predictor of the time to redo procedure, by multivariate regression analysis. At long-term follow-up (61 +/- 2.8 months), the mean MVA was 1.6 +/- 0.3 cm(2). Three patients--out of 12 available for follow-up--developed restenosis. CONCLUSION: Redo PMV for mitral restenosis is feasible, safe, and achieves immediate and long-term outcome comparable to initial PMV.
AIMS: We explored the immediate and long-term outcome of redo percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty (PMV) in a series of patients with mitral restenosis in comparison with initial PMV in the same series. METHODS: We enrolled 40 consecutive patients presenting with mitral restenosis after successful initial PMV. Redo PMV was performed by the antegrade transseptal approach using either the Inoue technique or the multitrack technique. Reassessment by transthoracic echocardiography was repeated 48 hours later, and annually thereafter. Procedural success was defined as 50% or more increase of mitral valve area (MVA) with a final MVA >or=1.5 cm(2), without major complications. Restenosis was defined as loss of >50% of the initial gain of MVA by the preceding PMV with a final MVA <1.5 cm(2). RESULTS: Procedural success was achieved in 37 (92.5%) patients. Both the initial and redo procedures were similar concerning the final MVA and mean transmitral pressure gradient (P > 0.05 for all). The gain of MVA was higher in the initial as compared to the redo procedure (P < 0.001). The initial mitral valve score correlated negatively with the final MVA in both the initial and redo procedures, and was the only independent predictor of the time to redo procedure, by multivariate regression analysis. At long-term follow-up (61 +/- 2.8 months), the mean MVA was 1.6 +/- 0.3 cm(2). Three patients--out of 12 available for follow-up--developed restenosis. CONCLUSION: Redo PMV for mitral restenosis is feasible, safe, and achieves immediate and long-term outcome comparable to initial PMV.