OBJECTIVES: To assess impact of left ventricular (LV) chamber remodeling on MitraClip (MClp) response. BACKGROUND: MitraClip is the sole percutaneous therapy approved for mitral regurgitation (MR) but response varies. LV dilation affects mitral coaptation; determinants of MClp response are uncertain. METHODS: LV and mitral geometry were quantified on pre- and post-procedure two-dimensional (2D) transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and intra-procedural three-dimensional (3D) transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Optimal MClp response was defined as ≤mild MR at early (1-6 month) follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty-seven degenerative MR patients underwent MClp: Whereas MR decreased ≥1 grade in 94%, 39% of patients had optimal response (≤mild MR). Responders had smaller pre-procedural LV end-diastolic volume (94 ± 24 vs. 109 ± 25 mL/m2 , p = 0.02), paralleling smaller annular diameter (3.1 ± 0.4 vs. 3.5 ± 0.5 cm, p = 0.002), and inter-papillary distance (2.2 ± 0.7 vs. 2.5 ± 0.6 cm, p = 0.04). 3D TEE-derived annular area correlated with 2D TTE (r = 0.59, p < 0.001) and was smaller among optimal responders (12.8 ± 2.1 cm2 vs. 16.8 ± 4.4 cm2 , p = 0.001). Both 2D and 3D mitral annular size yielded good diagnostic performance for optimal MClp response (AUC 0.73-0.84, p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, sub-optimal MClp response was associated with LV end-diastolic diameter (OR 3.10 per-cm [1.26-7.62], p = 0.01) independent of LA size (1.10 per-cm2 [1.02-1.19], p = 0.01); substitution of mitral annular diameter for LV size yielded an independent association with MClp response (4.06 per-cm2 [1.03-15.96], p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Among degenerative MR patients undergoing MClp, LV and mitral annular dilation augment risk for residual or recurrent MR, supporting the concept that MClp therapeutic response is linked to sub-valvular remodeling.
OBJECTIVES: To assess impact of left ventricular (LV) chamber remodeling on MitraClip (MClp) response. BACKGROUND:MitraClip is the sole percutaneous therapy approved for mitral regurgitation (MR) but response varies. LV dilation affects mitral coaptation; determinants of MClp response are uncertain. METHODS: LV and mitral geometry were quantified on pre- and post-procedure two-dimensional (2D) transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and intra-procedural three-dimensional (3D) transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Optimal MClp response was defined as ≤mild MR at early (1-6 month) follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty-seven degenerative MRpatients underwent MClp: Whereas MR decreased ≥1 grade in 94%, 39% of patients had optimal response (≤mild MR). Responders had smaller pre-procedural LV end-diastolic volume (94 ± 24 vs. 109 ± 25 mL/m2 , p = 0.02), paralleling smaller annular diameter (3.1 ± 0.4 vs. 3.5 ± 0.5 cm, p = 0.002), and inter-papillary distance (2.2 ± 0.7 vs. 2.5 ± 0.6 cm, p = 0.04). 3D TEE-derived annular area correlated with 2D TTE (r = 0.59, p < 0.001) and was smaller among optimal responders (12.8 ± 2.1 cm2 vs. 16.8 ± 4.4 cm2 , p = 0.001). Both 2D and 3D mitral annular size yielded good diagnostic performance for optimal MClp response (AUC 0.73-0.84, p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, sub-optimal MClp response was associated with LV end-diastolic diameter (OR 3.10 per-cm [1.26-7.62], p = 0.01) independent of LA size (1.10 per-cm2 [1.02-1.19], p = 0.01); substitution of mitral annular diameter for LV size yielded an independent association with MClp response (4.06 per-cm2 [1.03-15.96], p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Among degenerative MRpatients undergoing MClp, LV and mitral annular dilation augment risk for residual or recurrent MR, supporting the concept that MClp therapeutic response is linked to sub-valvular remodeling.
Authors: S L Nielsen; T A Timek; D T Lai; G T Daughters; D Liang; J M Hasenkam; N B Ingels; D C Miller Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-09-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: E C Jones; R B Devereux; M J Roman; J E Liu; D Fishman; E T Lee; T K Welty; R R Fabsitz; B V Howard Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2001-02-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: J P Singh; J C Evans; D Levy; M G Larson; L A Freed; D L Fuller; B Lehman; E J Benjamin Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1999-03-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: V Palmieri; B Dahlöf; V DeQuattro; N Sharpe; J N Bella; G de Simone; M Paranicas; D Fishman; R B Devereux Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1999-11-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ted Feldman; Elyse Foster; Donald D Glower; Donald G Glower; Saibal Kar; Michael J Rinaldi; Peter S Fail; Richard W Smalling; Robert Siegel; Geoffrey A Rose; Eric Engeron; Catalin Loghin; Alfredo Trento; Eric R Skipper; Tommy Fudge; George V Letsou; Joseph M Massaro; Laura Mauri Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Liliya Paranskaya; Giuseppe D'Ancona; Ilkay Bozdag-Turan; Ibrahim Akin; Stephan Kische; Gökmen R Turan; Tim Rehders; Jasmin Ortak; Christoph A Nienaber; Hüseyin Ince Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2013-02-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Frank Patrick Schmidt; Ralph Stephan von Bardeleben; Philipp Nikolai; Alexander Jabs; Nina Wunderlich; Thomas Münzel; Ulrich Hink; Ascan Warnholtz Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-01-02 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Ted Feldman; Saibal Kar; Michael Rinaldi; Peter Fail; James Hermiller; Richard Smalling; Patrick L Whitlow; William Gray; Reginald Low; Howard C Herrmann; Scott Lim; Elyse Foster; Donald Glower Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 24.094
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: 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