OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of patients' gender on the outcomes of percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (PMVR) using the MitraClip system. BACKGROUND: Although gender-related differences have been extensively documented in patients who undergo surgery for moderate-to-severe (3+) and severe (4+) mitral regurgitation (MR), studies assessing whether these differences exist after PMVR are lacking. METHODS: Clinical and echocardiographic data through 12-month follow up from 171 consecutive patients whom underwent MitraClip implantation and were dichotomized by the gender (106 males and 65 females) were obtained. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence of major adverse events at 30 days and the primary efficacy endpoint was freedom from death, surgery for mitral valve dysfunction, or grade≥3+ MR at 12-month follow up. RESULTS: The primary safety endpoint was observed in four males (3.8%) and four females (6.2%) (P=0.358). Remarkable reduction in MR postprocedure was revealed in both groups, and these results were mostly sustained. Furthermore, left ventricle reverse remodeling and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class improvement were revealed in both groups, but females tended to demonstrate worse results over time (P=0.083). The primary efficacy endpoint obtained by Kaplan-Meier estimates was observed in 76.3 and 70.2%, respectively (log rank P=0.231). CONCLUSIONS: MitraClip implantation in patients with 3+ and 4+ MR is safe and efficacious until mid-term follow up, regardless of patients' gender. Despite improvement in NYHA functional class in both groups, female gender demonstrated a trend toward poorer results. Further validation of our findings is warranted.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of patients' gender on the outcomes of percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (PMVR) using the MitraClip system. BACKGROUND: Although gender-related differences have been extensively documented in patients who undergo surgery for moderate-to-severe (3+) and severe (4+) mitral regurgitation (MR), studies assessing whether these differences exist after PMVR are lacking. METHODS: Clinical and echocardiographic data through 12-month follow up from 171 consecutive patients whom underwent MitraClip implantation and were dichotomized by the gender (106 males and 65 females) were obtained. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence of major adverse events at 30 days and the primary efficacy endpoint was freedom from death, surgery for mitral valve dysfunction, or grade≥3+ MR at 12-month follow up. RESULTS: The primary safety endpoint was observed in four males (3.8%) and four females (6.2%) (P=0.358). Remarkable reduction in MR postprocedure was revealed in both groups, and these results were mostly sustained. Furthermore, left ventricle reverse remodeling and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class improvement were revealed in both groups, but females tended to demonstrate worse results over time (P=0.083). The primary efficacy endpoint obtained by Kaplan-Meier estimates was observed in 76.3 and 70.2%, respectively (log rank P=0.231). CONCLUSIONS: MitraClip implantation in patients with 3+ and 4+ MR is safe and efficacious until mid-term follow up, regardless of patients' gender. Despite improvement in NYHA functional class in both groups, female gender demonstrated a trend toward poorer results. Further validation of our findings is warranted.
Authors: Jacqueline T DesJardin; Joanna Chikwe; Rebecca T Hahn; Judy W Hung; Francesca N Delling Journal: Circ Res Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Eike Tigges; Daniel Kalbacher; Christina Thomas; Sebastian Appelbaum; Florian Deuschl; Niklas Schofer; Michael Schlüter; Lenard Conradi; Johannes Schirmer; Hendrik Treede; Hermann Reichenspurner; Stefan Blankenberg; Ulrich Schäfer; Edith Lubos Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Michael G Paulus; Christine Meindl; Lukas Böhm; Magdalena Holzapfel; Michael Hamerle; Christian Schach; Lars S Maier; Kurt Debl; Bernhard Unsöld; Christoph Birner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-05-28 Impact factor: 3.240