Dataset Information

Impact of effective regurgitant orifice area on outcome of secondary mitral regurgitation transcatheter repair.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess the value of effective regurgitant orifice (ERO) in predicting outcome after edge-to-edge transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) for secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR) and identify the optimal cut-off for patients' selection.

Methods

Using the EuroSMR (European Registry of Transcatheter Repair for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation) registry, that included patients undergoing edge-to-edge TMVR for SMR between November 2008 and January 2019 in 8 experienced European centres, we assessed the optimal ERO threshold associated with mortality in SMR patients undergoing TMVR, and compared characteristics and outcomes of patients according to baseline ERO.

Results

Among 1062 patients with severe SMR and ERO quantification by proximal isovelocity surface area method in the registry, ERO was < 0.3 cm² in 575 patients (54.1%), who were more symptomatic at baseline (NYHA class ≥ III: 91.4% vs. 86.9%, for ERO < vs. ≥ 0.3 cm²; P = 0.004). There was no difference in all-cause mortality at 2-year follow-up according to baseline ERO (28.3% vs. 30.0% for ERO < vs. ≥ 0.3 cm², P = 0.585). Both patient groups demonstrated significant improvement of at least one NYHA class (61.7% and 73.8%, P = 0.002), resulting in a prevalence of NYHA class ≤ II at 1-year follow-up of 60.0% and 67.4% for ERO < vs. ≥ 0.3 cm², respectively (P = 0.05).

Conclusion

All-cause mortality at 2 years after TMVR does not differ if baseline ERO is < or ≥ 0.3 cm², and both groups exhibit relevant clinical improvements. Accordingly, TMVR should not be withheld from patients with ERO < 0.3 cm² who remain symptomatic despite optimal medical treatment, if TMVR appropriateness was determined by experienced teams in dedicated valve centres.

SUBMITTER: Karam N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8099828 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of effective regurgitant orifice area on outcome of secondary mitral regurgitation transcatheter repair.

Karam Nicole N Orban Mathias M Kalbacher Daniel D Butter Christian C Praz Fabien F Lubos Edith E Bannehr Marwin M Kassar Mohammad M Petrescu Aniela A Iliadis Christos C Unterhuber Matthias M Asselin Anouk A Thiele Holger H Pfister Roman R Windecker Stephan S Lurz Philipp P von Bardeleben Stephan S Hausleiter Jörg J

Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society 20210304 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the value of effective regurgitant orifice (ERO) in predicting outcome after edge-to-edge transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) for secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR) and identify the optimal cut-off for patients' selection.<h4>Methods</h4>Using the EuroSMR (European Registry of Transcatheter Repair for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation) registry, that included patients undergoing edge-to-edge TMVR for SMR between November 2008 and January 2019 in 8 experienced Eur ...[more]

PMID: 33661372

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTranscatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) plus maximally tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalizations (HFHs) and all-cause mortality (ACM) in symptomatic patients with HF and secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR) compared with GDMT alone in the Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation (COAPT) trial but not in a similar trial, Multicenter Study of Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair MitraClip Device in Patients With Severe Secondary Mitral Regurgitation (MITRA-FR), possibly because the degree of SMR relative to the left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVi) was substantially lower.ObjectiveTo explore contributions of the degree of SMR using the effective regurgitation orifice area (EROA), regurgitant volume (RV), and LVEDVi to the benefit of TMVr in the COAPT trial.Design, setting, and participantsThis post hoc secondary analysis of the COAPT randomized clinical trial performed December 27, 2012, to June 23, 2017, evaluated a subgroup of COAPT patients (group 1) with characteristics consistent with patients enrolled in MITRA-FR (n = 56) (HF with grade 3+ to 4+ SMR, left ventricular ejection fraction of 20%-50%, and New York Heart Association function class II-IV) compared with remaining (group 2) COAPT patients (n = 492) using the end point of ACM or HFH at 24 months, components of the primary end point, and quality of life (QOL) (per the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score) and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD). The same end points were evaluated in 6 subgroups of COAPT by combinations of EROA and LVEDVi and of RV relative to LVEDVi.InterventionsInterventions were TMVr plus GDMT vs GDMT alone.ResultsA total of 548 participants (mean [SD] age, 71.9 [11.2] years; 351 [64%] male) were included. In group 1, no significant difference was found in the composite rate of ACM or HFH between TMVr plus GDMT vs GDMT alone at 24 months (27.8% vs 33.1%, P = .83) compared with a significant difference at 24 months (31.5% vs 50.2%, P < .001) in group 2. However, patients randomized to receive TMVr vs those treated with GDMT alone had significantly greater improvement in QOL at 12 months (mean [SD] Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire summary scores: group 1: 18.36 [5.38] vs 0.43 [4.00] points; P = .01; group 2: 16.54 [1.57] vs 5.78 [1.82] points; P < .001). Group 1 TMVr-randomized patients vs those treated with GDMT alone also had significantly greater improvement in 6MWD at 12 months (mean [SD] paired improvement: 39.0 [28.6] vs -48.0 [18.6] m; P = .02). Group 2 TMVr-randomized patients vs those treated with GDMT alone tended to have greater improvement in 6MWD at 12 months, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (mean [SD] paired improvement: 35.0 [7.7] vs 16.0 [9.1] m; P = .11).Conclusions and relevanceA small subgroup of COAPT-resembling patients enrolled in MITRA-FR did not achieve improvement in ACM or HFH at 24 months but had a significant benefit on patient-centered outcomes (eg, QOL and 6MWD). Further subgroup analyses with 24-month follow-up suggest that the benefit of TMVr is not fully supported by the proportionate-disproportionate hypothesis.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01626079.

Project description:ImportanceThere are limited data on the outcomes of transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair for degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) in a real-world setting.ObjectiveTo evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve repair for degenerative MR.Design, setting, and participantsCohort study of consecutive patients in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry who underwent nonemergent transcatheter mitral valve repair for degenerative MR in the US from 2014 through 2022.ExposureTranscatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair with the MitraClip device (Abbott).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was MR success, defined as moderate or less residual MR and a mean mitral gradient of less than 10 mm Hg. Clinical outcomes were evaluated based on the degree of residual MR (mild or less MR or moderate MR) and mitral valve gradients (≤5 mm Hg or >5 to <10 mm Hg).ResultsA total of 19 088 patients with isolated moderate to severe or severe degenerative MR who underwent transcatheter mitral valve repair were analyzed (median age, 82 years; 48% women; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality with surgical mitral valve repair, 4.6%). MR success was achieved in 88.9% of patients. At 30 days, the incidence of death was 2.7%; stroke, 1.2%; and mitral valve reintervention, 0.97%. MR success compared with an unsuccessful procedure was associated with significantly lower mortality (14.0% vs 26.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.42-0.56; P < .001) and heart failure readmission (8.4% vs 16.9%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41-0.54; P < .001) at 1 year. Among patients with MR success, the lowest mortality was observed in patients who had both mild or less residual MR and mean mitral gradients of 5 mm Hg or less compared with those with an unsuccessful procedure (11.4% vs 26.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.34-0.47; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this registry-based study of patients with degenerative MR undergoing transcatheter mitral valve repair, the procedure was safe and resulted in successful repair in 88.9% of patients. The lowest mortality was observed in patients with mild or less residual MR and low mitral gradients.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial, transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) led to reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and improved survival in patients with symptomatic HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) on maximally-tolerated medical therapy. Given the advanced age and comorbidities of these patients, improvement in health status is also an important treatment goal. OBJECTIVES:The purpose of this study was to understand the health status outcomes of patients with HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary MR treated with TMVr versus standard care. METHODS:The COAPT trial randomized patients with HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary MR to TMVr (n = 302) or standard care (n = 312). Health status was assessed at baseline and at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the SF-36 health status survey. The primary health status endpoint was the KCCQ overall summary score (KCCQ-OS; range 0 to 100; higher = better; minimum clinically important difference = 5 points). RESULTS:At baseline, patients had substantially impaired health status (mean KCCQ-OS 52.4 ± 23.0). While health status was unchanged over time in the standard care arm, patients randomized to TMVr demonstrated substantial improvement in the KCCQ-OS at 1 month (mean between-group difference 15.9 points; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.3 to 19.5 points), with only slight attenuation of this benefit through 24 months (mean between-group difference 12.8 points; 95% CI: 7.5 to 18.2 points). At 24 months, 36.4% of TMVr patients were alive with a moderately large (≥10-point) improvement versus 16.6% of standard care patients (p < 0.001), for a number needed to treat of 5.1 patients (95% CI: 3.6 to 8.7 patients). TMVr patients also reported better generic health status at each timepoint (24-month mean difference in SF-36 summary scores: physical 3.6 points; 95% CI: 1.4 to 5.8 points; mental 3.6 points; 95% CI: 0.8 to 6.4 points). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with symptomatic HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary MR receiving maximally-tolerated medical therapy, edge-to-edge TMVr resulted in substantial early and sustained health status improvement compared with medical therapy alone. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial] [COAPT]; NCT01626079).

Dataset Information

Impact of effective regurgitant orifice area on outcome of secondary mitral regurgitation transcatheter repair.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Impact of effective regurgitant orifice area on outcome of secondary mitral regurgitation transcatheter repair.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets