OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to assess the impact on follow-up outcomes of residual mitral regurgitation 2+ in comparison with ≤ 1+ after MitraClip (Abbott Vascular Inc, Santa Clara, Calif) repair. METHODS: We compared the outcomes of mitral regurgitation 2+ and mitral regurgitation ≤ 1 + groups among a population of 223 consecutive patients with acute residual mitral regurgitation ≤ 2+ who underwent MitraClip implantation at San Raffaele Scientific Institute (Milan, Italy) between October 2008 and December 2014. RESULTS: Residual mitral regurgitation 2+ was found in 64 patients (28.7%). Overall actuarial survival was 63.1% ± 4.4% at 48 months. Cumulative incidence functions of cardiac death in patients with mitral regurgitation 2+ was significantly higher (Gray test P < .001) compared with the mitral regurgitation ≤ 1+ group. The adjusted hazard ratio was 5.28 (95% confidence interval, 2.41-11.56, P < .001). Cumulative incidence function of mitral regurgitation ≥ 3+ recurrence in patients with residual mitral regurgitation ≤ 1+ and mitral regurgitation 2+ at 48 months was 13.3% ± 3.8% and 45.2% ± 6.8%, respectively (Gray test P < .001). Multivariate model showed that mitral regurgitation 2+ was the only factor associated with the development of mitral regurgitation ≥ 3+ at follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio, 6.71; 95% confidence interval, 3.48-12.90; P < .001). Mitral regurgitation cause was not associated with cardiac death and recurrence of mitral regurgitation ≥ 3+ at follow-up. No relationship between New York Heart Association class and follow-up time after MitraClip implant was found (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.15; P = .11), and factors related to postoperative New York Heart Association also included residual mitral regurgitation 2+ (P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: Residual 2+ mitral regurgitation after MitraClip implantation was associated with worse follow-up outcomes compared with ≤ 1+ mitral regurgitation, including survival, symptom relief, and mitral regurgitation recurrence. Better efficacy should be pursued by transcatheter mitral repair technologies.
OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to assess the impact on follow-up outcomes of residual mitral regurgitation 2+ in comparison with ≤ 1+ after MitraClip (Abbott Vascular Inc, Santa Clara, Calif) repair. METHODS: We compared the outcomes of mitral regurgitation 2+ and mitral regurgitation ≤ 1 + groups among a population of 223 consecutive patients with acute residual mitral regurgitation ≤ 2+ who underwent MitraClip implantation at San Raffaele Scientific Institute (Milan, Italy) between October 2008 and December 2014. RESULTS: Residual mitral regurgitation 2+ was found in 64 patients (28.7%). Overall actuarial survival was 63.1% ± 4.4% at 48 months. Cumulative incidence functions of cardiac death in patients with mitral regurgitation 2+ was significantly higher (Gray test P < .001) compared with the mitral regurgitation ≤ 1+ group. The adjusted hazard ratio was 5.28 (95% confidence interval, 2.41-11.56, P < .001). Cumulative incidence function of mitral regurgitation ≥ 3+ recurrence in patients with residual mitral regurgitation ≤ 1+ and mitral regurgitation 2+ at 48 months was 13.3% ± 3.8% and 45.2% ± 6.8%, respectively (Gray test P < .001). Multivariate model showed that mitral regurgitation 2+ was the only factor associated with the development of mitral regurgitation ≥ 3+ at follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio, 6.71; 95% confidence interval, 3.48-12.90; P < .001). Mitral regurgitation cause was not associated with cardiac death and recurrence of mitral regurgitation ≥ 3+ at follow-up. No relationship between New York Heart Association class and follow-up time after MitraClip implant was found (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.15; P = .11), and factors related to postoperative New York Heart Association also included residual mitral regurgitation 2+ (P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: Residual 2+ mitral regurgitation after MitraClip implantation was associated with worse follow-up outcomes compared with ≤ 1+ mitral regurgitation, including survival, symptom relief, and mitral regurgitation recurrence. Better efficacy should be pursued by transcatheter mitral repair technologies.
Authors: Jiwon Kim; Javid Alakbarli; Maria Chiara Palumbo; Lola X Xie; Lisa Q Rong; Nathan H Tehrani; Lillian R Brouwer; Richard B Devereux; Shing Chiu Wong; Geoffrey W Bergman; Omar K Khalique; Robert A Levine; Mark B Ratcliffe; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Lisa Q Rong; Alexandra J Lopes; Hannah W Mitlak; Maria C Palumbo; Stephanie Mick; Jiwon Kim; Robert A Levine; S Chiu Wong; Mark Reisman; Richard B Devereux; Mario Gaudino; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jakob Ledwoch; Katharina Leidgschwendner; Carmen Fellner; Felix Poch; Ida Olbrich; Ruth Thalmann; Hans Kossmann; Michael Dommasch; Ralf Dirschinger; Anja Stundl; Karl-Ludwig Laugwitz; Christian Kupatt; Petra Hoppmann Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Jiwon Kim; Maria Chiara Palumbo; Omar K Khalique; Lisa Q Rong; Razia Sultana; Mukund Das; Jennifer Jantz; Yasfumi Nagata; Richard B Devereux; Shing Chiu Wong; Geoffrey W Bergman; Robert A Levine; Mark B Ratcliffe; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound Date: 2019-12-26 Impact factor: 2.062
Authors: Antonio Mangieri; Matteo Pagnesi; Damiano Regazzoli; Alessandra Laricchia; Edwin Ho; Ythan Goldberg; Mei Chau; Francesco Gallo; Andrea Fisicaro; Arif Khokhar; Antonio Colombo; Francesco Giannini; Azeem Latib Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2020-10-14
Authors: Muhammed Gerçek; Fabian Roder; Tanja K Rudolph; Vera Fortmeier; Armin Zittermann; Volker Rudolph; Kai P Friedrichs Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2021-04-10 Impact factor: 5.460