OBJECTIVES: Among patients undergoing transcatheter mitral valve repair with the MitraClip device, a relevant proportion (2-6%) requires open mitral valve surgery within 1 year after unsuccessful clip implantation. The goal of this review is to pool data from different reports to provide a comprehensive overview of mitral valve surgery outcomes after the MitraClip procedure and estimate in-hospital and follow-up mortality. METHODS: All published clinical studies reporting on surgical intervention for a failed MitraClip procedure were evaluated for inclusion in this meta-analysis. The primary study outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital adverse events and follow-up mortality. Pooled estimate rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of study outcomes were calculated using a DerSimionian-Laird binary random-effects model. To assess heterogeneity across studies, we used the Cochrane Q statistic to compute I2 values. RESULTS: Overall, 20 reports were included, comprising 172 patients. Mean age was 70.5 years (95% CI 67.2-73.7 years). The underlying mitral valve disease was functional mitral regurgitation in 50% and degenerative mitral regurgitation in 49% of cases. The indication for surgery was persistent or recurrent mitral regurgitation (grade >2) in 93% of patients, whereas 6% of patients presented with mitral stenosis. At the time of the operation, 80% of patients presented in New York Heart Association functional class III-IV. Despite favourable intraoperative results, in-hospital mortality was 15%. The rate of periprocedural cerebrovascular accidents was 6%. At a mean follow-up of 12 months, all-cause death was 26.5%. Mitral valve replacement was most commonly required because the possibility of valve repair was jeopardized, likely due to severe valve injury after clip implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical intervention after failed transcatheter mitral valve intervention is burdened by high in-hospital and 1-year mortality, which reflects reflecting the high-risk baseline profile of the patients. Mitral valve replacement is usually required due to leaflet injury.
OBJECTIVES: Among patients undergoing transcatheter mitral valve repair with the MitraClip device, a relevant proportion (2-6%) requires open mitral valve surgery within 1 year after unsuccessful clip implantation. The goal of this review is to pool data from different reports to provide a comprehensive overview of mitral valve surgery outcomes after the MitraClip procedure and estimate in-hospital and follow-up mortality. METHODS: All published clinical studies reporting on surgical intervention for a failed MitraClip procedure were evaluated for inclusion in this meta-analysis. The primary study outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital adverse events and follow-up mortality. Pooled estimate rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of study outcomes were calculated using a DerSimionian-Laird binary random-effects model. To assess heterogeneity across studies, we used the Cochrane Q statistic to compute I2 values. RESULTS: Overall, 20 reports were included, comprising 172 patients. Mean age was 70.5 years (95% CI 67.2-73.7 years). The underlying mitral valve disease was functional mitral regurgitation in 50% and degenerative mitral regurgitation in 49% of cases. The indication for surgery was persistent or recurrent mitral regurgitation (grade >2) in 93% of patients, whereas 6% of patients presented with mitral stenosis. At the time of the operation, 80% of patients presented in New York Heart Association functional class III-IV. Despite favourable intraoperative results, in-hospital mortality was 15%. The rate of periprocedural cerebrovascular accidents was 6%. At a mean follow-up of 12 months, all-cause death was 26.5%. Mitral valve replacement was most commonly required because the possibility of valve repair was jeopardized, likely due to severe valve injury after clip implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical intervention after failed transcatheter mitral valve intervention is burdened by high in-hospital and 1-year mortality, which reflects reflecting the high-risk baseline profile of the patients. Mitral valve replacement is usually required due to leaflet injury.
Authors: Lenard Conradi; Hendrik Treede; Olaf Franzen; Moritz Seiffert; Stephan Baldus; Johannes Schirmer; Thomas Meinertz; Hermann Reichenspurner Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2011-04-15 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Jason H Rogers; Khung Keong Yeo; John D Carroll; Joseph Cleveland; T Brett Reece; A Marc Gillinov; Leonardo Rodriguez; Patrick Whitlow; Y Joseph Woo; Howard C Herrmann; J Nilas Young Journal: J Card Surg Date: 2009-07-24 Impact factor: 1.620
Authors: Nicholas C Dang; Michael S Aboodi; Taichi Sakaguchi; Hal S Wasserman; Michael Argenziano; Delos M Cosgrove; Todd K Rosengart; Ted Feldman; Peter C Block; Mehmet C Oz Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Nadejda Monsefi; Andreas Zierer; Mahmud Khalil; Mahmut Ay; Andres Beiras-Fernandez; Anton Moritz; Ulrich Alfred Stock Journal: Tex Heart Inst J Date: 2014-12-01
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18
Authors: Miriam Puls; Edith Lubos; Peter Boekstegers; Ralph Stephan von Bardeleben; Taoufik Ouarrak; Christian Butter; Christine S Zuern; Raffi Bekeredjian; Horst Sievert; Georg Nickenig; Holger Eggebrecht; Jochen Senges; Wolfgang Schillinger Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Serdar Akansel; Markus Kofler; Karel M Van Praet; Axel Unbehaun; Simon H Sündermann; Stephan Jacobs; Volkmar Falk; Jörg Kempfert Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2022-07-09
Authors: Piotr Mazur; Arman Arghami; Clark Zheng; Mohamad Alkhouli; Hartzell V Schaff; Joseph Dearani; Richard C Daly; Kevin Greason; Juan A Crestanello Journal: JTCVS Tech Date: 2022-05-14