AIMS: The aim of this study was to identify the impact of previous aortic valve replacement (AVR) in MitraClip (MC) patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from the German transcatheter mitral valve interventions (TRAMI) registry were analysed in the light of previous AVR by means of either standard AVR (SAVR) or transcatheter AVR (TAVR). Out of 791 MC patients, 68 (8.6%) had been submitted to AVR (68.4% SAVR and 31.6% TAVR). The AVR group was significantly older (77.2±8.0 years vs. 75.1±8.6 years; p<0.05) and had a trend towards a higher risk profile (median STS score 10 [8.0-12.0] vs. 6.0 [3.0-11.0]; p=0.1). No procedural mortality was observed. Severe residual MV regurgitation was reported in 6.2% of AVR vs. 3.7% of the no-AVR patients (p=0.1). Thirty-day mortality was 10.6% in the previous AVR group vs. 3.9% in the no-AVR group (p<0.05). One-year estimated survival was lower in the AVR group (AVR 63% vs. no-AVR 81%; p<0.0001; HR 2.25, 95% CI: 1.42-3.55). Estimated survival in TAVR compared to SAVR was lower (TAVR 44.4% vs. SAVR 70%; p=0.039; HR 2.32, 95% CI: 0.99-5.37). AVR was a determinant of follow-up mortality (HR 2.18, 95% CI: 1.4-3.4; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Previous AVR in patients undergoing MC therapy carries a heavy and independent burden of mortality/morbidity.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to identify the impact of previous aortic valve replacement (AVR) in MitraClip (MC) patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from the German transcatheter mitral valve interventions (TRAMI) registry were analysed in the light of previous AVR by means of either standard AVR (SAVR) or transcatheter AVR (TAVR). Out of 791 MCpatients, 68 (8.6%) had been submitted to AVR (68.4% SAVR and 31.6% TAVR). The AVR group was significantly older (77.2±8.0 years vs. 75.1±8.6 years; p<0.05) and had a trend towards a higher risk profile (median STS score 10 [8.0-12.0] vs. 6.0 [3.0-11.0]; p=0.1). No procedural mortality was observed. Severe residual MV regurgitation was reported in 6.2% of AVR vs. 3.7% of the no-AVR patients (p=0.1). Thirty-day mortality was 10.6% in the previous AVR group vs. 3.9% in the no-AVR group (p<0.05). One-year estimated survival was lower in the AVR group (AVR 63% vs. no-AVR 81%; p<0.0001; HR 2.25, 95% CI: 1.42-3.55). Estimated survival in TAVR compared to SAVR was lower (TAVR 44.4% vs. SAVR 70%; p=0.039; HR 2.32, 95% CI: 0.99-5.37). AVR was a determinant of follow-up mortality (HR 2.18, 95% CI: 1.4-3.4; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Previous AVR in patients undergoing MC therapy carries a heavy and independent burden of mortality/morbidity.
Authors: Johannes Patzelt; Miriam Ulrich; Annika Becker; Karin A L Müller; Rezo Jorbenadze; Michal Droppa; Wenzhong Zhang; Sarah Mandel; Lisa Habel; Henning Lausberg; Janine Pöss; Tobias Geisler; Oliver Borst; Peter Rosenberger; Christian Schlensak; Meinrad Gawaz; Jürgen Schreieck; Peter Seizer; Harald F Langer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-19 Impact factor: 3.240