Search

Background: Secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR) occurs in the absence of organic mitral valve disease and may develop as the left ventricle dilates or remodels or as a result of leaflet tethering with impaired coaptation, most commonly from apical and lateral distraction of the subvalvular apparatus, with late annular dilatation. The optimal therapy for SMR is unclear. This study sought to evaluate the 1-year adjudicated outcomes of all patients with SMR undergoing the MitraClip procedure in the EVEREST II (Endovascular Valve Edge-to-Edge Repair Study) Investigational Device Exemption program, which is comprised of the randomized clinical trial, the prospective High-Risk Registry, and the REALISM Continued Access Registry (Multicenter Study of the MitraClip System).Methods: Patients with 3+/4+ SMR enrolled in EVEREST II were stratified by non-high surgical risk (non-HR) and high surgical risk (HR) status (defined as Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk of mortality ≥12% or predefined risk factors). Clinical, echocardiographic, and functional outcomes at 1 year were evaluated.Results: A total of 616 patients (482 HR, 134 non-HR; mean age, 73.3±10.5 years; Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk, 10.2±6.9%) with SMR underwent the MitraClip procedure. At baseline, 80.5% of patients were in New York Heart Association class III/IV. Major adverse events at 30 days included death (3.6%), stroke (2.3%), and renal failure (1.5%). At discharge, 88.8% had MR ≤2+. At 1 year, there were 139 deaths, and the Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from mortality was 76.8%. The majority of surviving patients (84.7%) remained with MR ≤2+ and New York Heart Association class I/II (83.0%). Kaplan-Meier survival at 1 year was 74.1% in HR patients and 86.4% in non-HR patients ( P=0.0175). At 1 year, both groups achieved comparable MR reduction (MR ≤2+, 84.0% versus 87.0%) and improvement in left ventricular end-diastolic volume (-8.0 mL versus -12.7 mL), whereas New York Heart Association class I/II was found in 80.1% versus 91.8% ( P=0.008) of HR and non-HR patients, respectively. In HR patients, the annualized rate of heart failure hospitalizations decreased from 0.68 to 0.46 in the 12 months before to 12 months after the procedure ( P<0.0001).Conclusions: Transcatheter mitral valve repair with the MitraClip in patients with secondary MR is associated with acceptable safety, reduction of MR severity, symptom improvement, and positive ventricular remodeling.Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifiers: NCT00209274, NCT01940120, and NCT01931956. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Comparative echocardiographic data on transcatheter aortic valve replacement systems from randomized trials are limited. The REPRISE III trial (Repositionable Percutaneous Replacement of Stenotic Aortic Valve through Implantation of Lotus Valve System - Randomized Clinical Evaluation) is a multicenter, randomized comparison of a mechanically expanded (Lotus) versus self-expanding (CoreValve) transcatheter aortic valve replacement device. This analysis rigorously assesses Doppler-derived valve hemodynamics and the impact on outcomes at 1 year in patients with extreme/high surgical risk treated with Lotus and CoreValve from REPRISE III.Methods: REPRISE III includes patients with extreme- and high-risk aortic stenosis. Patients were enrolled at 55 centers. All transthoracic echocardiograms with Doppler were obtained following a standard protocol up to 12 months postimplant and analyzed by a core laboratory. Valve size, mean gradient, aortic valve area, and Doppler velocity index and their impact on clinical outcomes are reported. Additional parameters including paravalvular leak were evaluated using a multiparametric approach.Results: A total of 912 patients were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio; 607 Lotus:305 CoreValve). Median age was 84 years, 51% of the patients were women, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 6.8±4.1. CoreValve demonstrated lower gradients and larger aortic valve area and Doppler velocity index than Lotus at discharge; the difference decreased in subsequent follow-up up to a year (all P<0.01). Lotus had lower rates of paravalvular leak that persisted over time (P<0.05). Similar outcomes were seen when comparing each valve type by size group (small, medium, large). The hemodynamic differences between valves did not translate into worse clinical outcomes. All-cause mortality was not different between the 2 groups in any of the 3 valve sizes. When comparing patients with normal valve gradients (<20 mm Hg, n=780) with those with abnormal gradients (>20 mm Hg, n=48) in the entire patient population, all-cause mortality was not different. This was also not significant when evaluating each valve type separately. Similarly, there were no differences for aortic valve area >1.1 cm2 or <1.1 cm2 and for Doppler velocity index >0.35 or <0.35 (all P=not significant).Conclusions: Lotus had significantly greater freedom from moderate or severe paravalvular leak and smaller valve area and higher gradients than CoreValve. The hemodynamic differences were not associated with any clinical differences in the composite end point of mortality, disabling stroke, and moderate paravalvular leak or with quality of life at 1 year of follow-up.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02202434. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bioprostheses are prone to structural valve degeneration, resulting in limited long-term durability. A significant challenge when comparing the durability of different types of bioprostheses is the lack of a standardized terminology for the definition of a degenerated valve. This issue becomes especially important when we try to compare the degeneration rate of surgically inserted and transcatheter bioprosthetic valves. This document, by the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data), proposes practical and standardized definitions of valve degeneration and provides recommendations for the timing of clinical and imaging follow-up assessments accordingly. Its goal is to improve the quality of research and clinical care for patients with deteriorated bioprostheses by providing objective and strict criteria that can be utilized in future clinical trials. We hope that the adoption of these criteria by both the cardiological and surgical communities will lead to improved comparability and interpretation of durability analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]