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.

What is a “good” result after transcatheter mitral repair? Impact of 2+ residual mitral regurgitation / N. Buzzatti, M. De Bonis, P. Denti, F. Barili, D. Schiavi, G. Di Giannuario, G. La Canna, O. Alfieri. - In: JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY. - ISSN 0022-5223. - 151:1(2016), pp. 88-96. [10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.09.099]

What is a “good” result after transcatheter mitral repair? Impact of 2+ residual mitral regurgitation

P. Denti;F. Barili;
2016

Abstract

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.
MitraClip; mitral regurgitation; repair; transcatheter
Settore MED/23 - Chirurgia Cardiaca
2016
1-ott-2015
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
65) Buzzati 2016 JTCVS Mitraclip.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 776.28 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
776.28 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/1028652
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 21
  • Scopus 84
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 76
social impact