Search

Background: Both transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) of mitral regurgitation or left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) require periprocedural anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin (UFH) that is administered either before or immediately after transseptal puncture (TSP). The optimal timing of UFH administration (before or after TSP) is unknown. The Strategy To Optimize PeriproCeduraL AnticOagulation in Structural Transseptal Interventions trial (STOP CLOT Trial) was designed to determine if early anticoagulation is effective in reducing ischemic complications without increasing the risk of periprocedural bleeding., Methods: The STOP CLOT trial is a multicenter, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. A total of 410 patients scheduled for TEER or LAAC will be randomized 1:1 either early UFH administration (iv. bolus of 100 units/kg UFH or placebo, given after obtaining femoral vein access and at least 5 minutes prior to the start of the TSP) or late UFH administration (iv. bolus of 100 units/kg UFH or placebo given immediately after TSP). Prespecified preliminary statistical analysis will be performed after complete follow-up of the first 196 randomized subjects. To ensure blinding, a study nurse responsible for randomization and UFH/placebo preparation is not involved in the care of the patients enrolled into the study. The primary study endpoint is a composite of (1) major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (death, stroke, TIA, myocardial infarction, or peripheral embolization) within 30 days post-procedure, (2) intraprocedural fresh thrombus formation in the right or left atrium as assessed with periprocedural transesophageal echocardiography, or (3) occurrence of new ischemic lesions (diameter ≥4 mm) on brain magnetic resonance imaging performed 2 to 5 days after the procedure. The safety endpoint is the occurrence of moderate or severe bleeding complications during the index hospitalization., Conclusions: Protocols of periprocedural anticoagulation administration during structural interventions have never been tested in a randomized clinical trial. The Stop Clot trial may help reach consensus on the optimal timing of initiation of periprocedural anticoagulation., Clinical Trials Registration Number: The study protocol is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05305612., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr Pręgowski is a proctor for Abbott, Boston Scientific and Edwards LifeSciences; Dr Capodanno reports speaker's or consulting honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Terumo, Novo Nordisk (personal) and Medtronic (institutional); Dr Grygier is a proctor and reports speaker's or consulting honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific and Medtronic; Dr De Baker received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific; Dr Wojakowski is a proctor for Abbott and reports speaker's fee from Edwards LifeSciences; Dr Witkowski is a proctor for Edwards LifeSciences; The other authors do not have relevant disclosures., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) using dedicated devices is an alternative therapy for high-risk patients with symptomatic mitral regurgitation (MR)., Aims: This study aimed to assess the 2-year outcomes and predictors of mortality in patients undergoing TMVR from the multicentre CHOICE-MI Registry., Methods: The CHOICE-MI Registry included consecutive patients with symptomatic MR treated with 11 different dedicated TMVR devices at 31 international centres. The investigated endpoints included mortality and heart failure hospitalisation rates, procedural complications, residual MR, and functional status. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was applied to identify independent predictors of 2-year mortality., Results: A total of 400 patients, median age 76 years (interquartile range [IQR] 71, 81), 59.5% male, EuroSCORE II 6.2% (IQR 3.8, 12.0), underwent TMVR. Technical success was achieved in 95.2% of patients. MR reduction to ≤1+ was observed in 95.2% at discharge with durable results at 1 and 2 years. New York Heart Association Functional Class had improved significantly at 1 and 2 years. All-cause mortality was 9.2% at 30 days, 27.9% at 1 year and 38.1% at 2 years after TMVR. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, reduced glomerular filtration rate, and low serum albumin were independent predictors of 2-year mortality. Among the 30-day complications, left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, access site and bleeding complications showed the strongest impact on 2-year mortality., Conclusions: In this real-world registry of patients with symptomatic MR undergoing TMVR, treatment with TMVR was associated with a durable resolution of MR and significant functional improvement at 2 years. Two-year mortality was 38.1%. Optimised patient selection and improved access site management are mandatory to improve outcomes.

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is an emerging therapeutic alternative for patients with secondary mitral regurgitation (MR). Outcomes of TMVR versus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) have not been investigated for this population. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of patients with secondary MR undergoing TMVR versus GDMT alone., Methods: The CHOICE-MI registry (Choice of Optimal Transcatheter Treatment for Mitral Insufficiency) included patients with MR undergoing TMVR using dedicated devices. Patients with MR pathogeneses other than secondary MR were excluded. Patients treated with GDMT alone were derived from the control arm of the COAPT trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation). We compared outcomes between the TMVR and GDMT groups, using propensity score matching to adjust for baseline differences., Results: After propensity score matching, 97 patient pairs undergoing TMVR (72.9±8.7 years; 60.8% men; transapical access, 91.8%) versus GDMT (73.1±11.0 years; 59.8% men) were compared. At 1 and 2 years, residual MR was ≤1+ in all patients of the TMVR group compared with 6.9% and 7.7%, respectively, in those receiving GDMT alone (both P <0.001). The 2-year rate of heart failure hospitalization was significantly lower in the TMVR group (32.8% versus 54.4%; hazard ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.35-0.99]; P =0.04). Among survivors, a higher proportion of patients were in the New York Heart Association functional class I or II in the TMVR group at 1 year (78.2% versus 59.7%; P =0.03) and at 2 years (77.8% versus 53.2%; P =0.09). Two-year mortality was similar in the 2 groups (TMVR versus GDMT, 36.8% versus 40.8%; hazard ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.62-1.64]; P =0.98)., Conclusions: In this observational comparison, over 2-year follow-up, TMVR using mostly transapical devices in patients with secondary MR was associated with significant reduction of MR, symptomatic improvement, less frequent hospitalizations for heart failure, and similar mortality compared with GDMT., Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04688190 (CHOICE-MI) and NCT01626079 (COAPT)., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Ludwig reports travel compensation from Edwards; speaker honoraria from Abbott; and advisory fees from Bayer. Dr Conradi reports being on the advisory board at Abbott, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific and personal fees from Edwards. Dr Cohen reports research grant and consulting fees from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic AC; is a proctor at Abbott; and is a speaker at Abbott and General Electric Healthcare. Dr Scotti is a consultant for NeoChord. Dr Abraham reports research grant from the National Institutes of Health–National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (National Institutes of Health 1 UG3/UH3 HL140144-01, 08/01/18-07/31/22, LOFT-HF [Impact of Low Flow Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy on Hospital Readmission/Mortality in Patients With Heart Failure and Central Sleep Apnea]); consulting at Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Zoll; honoraria from Impulse Dynamics; and salary from V-Wave Medical. Dr Ben Ali reports grants from Medtronic and Edwards. Dr Kar reports grants and consulting from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards, and 4TECH and stock at 4TECH. Dr Scott Lim reports grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Corvia, Edwards, Medtronic, Trisol, and V-Wave and is a consultant at Ancora, Philips, Valgen, and Venus. Dr Duncan is a consultant at Abbott, Edwards, and Medtronic. Dr Adamo reports personal fees from Edwards and Boston Scientific and grants and honoraria from Medtronic. Dr Muller is on the advisory board at Abbott, Medtronic, and Edwards. Dr Petronio is a consultant at Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. Dr Ruge is on the advisory board at Abbott and is a proctor at Abbott and Edwards. Dr Sondergaard reports grants and consulting at Edwards and Medtronic. Dr Adam reports grants and honoraria from Medtronic and personal fees from Boston Scientific and Edwards. Dr Dahle is a proctor/speaker at Abbott and Edwards. Dr Kempfert reports honoraria from Edwards, Medtronic, Abbott, and CryoLife. Dr Garatti is a proctor at Abbott. Dr Schmidt reports honoraria and travel support from Abbott and Cardiovalve. Dr Tang is a proctor/consultant at Medtronic; consultant/advisory board at Abbott; consultant at NeoChord; advisory board at JenaValve; and honoraria from Siemens and EastEnd Medical. Dr Redwood is a proctor at and reports personal fees from Edwards and is on the advisory board at Medtronic. Dr Taramasso is a consultant at Abbott, Edwards, Boston Scientific, Shenqi Medical, Simulands, Occlufit, MTEx, Medira, 4tech, and CoreMedic and reports personal fees from Cardiovalve. Dr Praz is a consultant at Edwards. Dr Fam is a consultant at Edwards, Abbott, and Cardiovalve. Dr Dumonteil is a consultant/proctor at Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards, and Medtronic. Dr von Bardeleben reports consulting/honoraria from Abbott, Edwards, and Medtronic and research grants to the university from Abbott and Edwards. Dr Rudolph reports honoraria from Abbott. Dr Reardon is a consultant at Medtronic, Boston, Abbott, and Gore (all funds to the department). Dr Metra reports personal fees from Actelion, Amgen, Livanova, Servier, Vifor Pharma as member of the Executive or Data Monitoring Committees of sponsored clinical trials, AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bayer, Boheringer Ingelhelm, and Edwards Therapeutics for participation to advisory boards and speeches at sponsored meetings. Dr Denti reports personal fees from Abbott and Edwards. Dr Mack reports being a co-Principal Investigator for the PARTNER trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve Trial; Edwards) and COAPT trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation; Abbott) and is a study chair for the APOLLO trial (Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement With the Medtronic Intrepid TMVR System in Patients With Severe Symptomatic Mitral Regurgitation; Medtronic). Dr Hausleiter reports consulting fees, speaker honoraria, and research support to the institution from Abbott and Edwards. Dr Asch reports institutional contracts from Abbott, Neovasc, Ancora, Mitralign, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Biotronik, and Livanova. Dr Latib is on the advisory board at Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Philips, Edwards, and Abbott. Dr Lindenfeld reports grant support from AstraZeneca and consulting at Abbott, Alleviant, AstraZeneca, Cordio, CVRx, Edwards, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Medtronic, Vascular Dynamics, and V-Wave. Dr Modine is a consultant at Abbott, Edwards, and Medtronic. Dr Stone reports honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, and Infraredx; is a consultant at Valfix, TherOx, Robocath, HeartFlow, Ablative Solutions, Vectorious, Miracor, Neovasc, Abiomed, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, CorFlow, Apollo Therapeutics, Impulse Dynamics, Cardiomech, Gore, Amgen, Adona Medical, and Millennia Biopharma; and reports equity/options at Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and Xenter. Dr Stone’s daughter is an employee at Medtronic. Dr Stone’s employer, Mount Sinai Hospital, receives research support from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems, Inc, Phillips, Biosense Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, Pulnovo, and V-wave. Dr Granada is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Cardiovascular Research Foundation. The other authors report no conflicts.

Aims: This study aimed to compare outcomes after transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) and mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER) for the treatment of secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR)., Methods and Results: The CHOICE-MI registry included 262 patients with SMR treated with TMVR between 2014 and 2022. The EuroSMR registry included 1065 patients with SMR treated with M-TEER between 2014 and 2019. Propensity score (PS) matching was performed for 12 demographic, clinical and echocardiographic parameters. Echocardiographic, functional and clinical outcomes out to 1 year were compared in the matched cohorts. After PS matching, 235 TMVR patients (75.5 years [70.0, 80.0], 60.2% male, EuroSCORE II 6.3% [interquartile range 3.8, 12.4]) were compared to 411 M-TEER patients (76.7 years [70.1, 80.5], 59.0% male, EuroSCORE II 6.7% [3.9, 12.4]). All-cause mortality was 6.8% after TMVR and 3.8% after M-TEER at 30 days (p = 0.11), and 25.8% after TMVR and 18.9% after M-TEER at 1 year (p = 0.056). No differences in mortality after 1 year were found between both groups in a 30-day landmark analysis (TMVR: 20.4%, M-TEER: 15.8%, p = 0.21). Compared to M-TEER, TMVR resulted in more effective mitral regurgitation (MR) reduction (residual MR ≤1+ at discharge for TMVR vs. M-TEER: 95.8% vs. 68.8%, p < 0.001), and superior symptomatic improvement (New York Heart Association class ≤II at 1 year: 77.8% vs. 64.3%, p = 0.015)., Conclusion: In this PS-matched comparison between TMVR and M-TEER in patients with severe SMR, TMVR was associated with superior reduction of MR and superior symptomatic improvement. While post-procedural mortality tended to be higher after TMVR, no significant differences in mortality were found beyond 30 days., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Funding was received from St Paul's Foundation and the Providence Health Care Research Institute (PHCRI) Early Career Research Initiative. Dr Akodad has received research funding from Medtronic, Biotronik, MUSE Explore, and Federation Française de Cardiologie. Dr Sathananthan has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences and NVT Medical; and has reported consulting for Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Tzimas has reported support from the Fondation Vaudoise de Cardiologie. Dr Gulsin has reported support from a British Heart Foundation Travel Fellowship (FS/TF/21/33008). Dr Blanke has reported consulting for Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Neovasc; and has provided computed tomography core laboratory services for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Neovasc, Boston Scientific, and Abbott, for which no direct compensation was received. Dr Sondergaard has received consultant fees and/or institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and SMT. Dr Wood has reported consulting for and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott. Dr Webb has reported consulting for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Leipsic has reported support from a Canadian Research Chair in Advanced Cardiopulmonary Imaging; has reported consulting for MVRX, HeartFlow, and Circle Cardiovascular Imaging; and has provided computed tomography core laboratory services for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Neovasc, Boston Scientific, and Abbott, for which no direct compensation is received. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe baseline characteristics, and periprocedural and mid-term outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter mitral valve interventions post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and examine their clinical benefit., Background: The optimal management of residual mitral regurgitation (MR) post-TAVR is challenging., Methods: This was an international registry of 23 TAVR centers., Results: In total, 106 of 24,178 patients (0.43%) underwent mitral interventions post-TAVR (100 staged, 6 concomitant), most commonly percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (PMVR). The median interval post-TAVR was 164 days. Mean age was 79.5 ± 7.2 years, MR was >moderate in 97.2%, technical success was 99.1%, and 30-day device success rate was 88.7%. There were 18 periprocedural complications (16.9%) including 4 deaths. During a median follow-up of 464 days, the cumulative risk for 3-year mortality was 29.0%. MR grade and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class improved dramatically; at 1 year, MR was moderate or less in 90.9% of patients (mild or less in 69.1%), and 85.9% of patients were in NYHA functional class I/II. Staged PMVR was associated with lower mortality versus medical treatment (57.5% vs. 30.8%) in a propensity-matched cohort (n = 156), but this was not statistically significant (hazard ratio: 1.75; p = 0.05)., Conclusions: For patients who continue to have significant MR, remain symptomatic post-TAVR, and are anatomically suitable for transcatheter interventions, these interventions are feasible, safe, and associated with significant improvement in MR grade and NYHA functional class. These results apply mainly to PMVR. A staged PMVR strategy was associated with markedly lower mortality, but this was not statistically significant. (Transcatheter Treatment for Combined Aortic and Mitral Valve Disease. The Aortic+Mitral TRAnsCatheter Valve Registry [AMTRAC]; NCT04031274)., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Barbanti has received consultant fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. De Backer has received research grants and consultant fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr. Sievert has received institutional honoraria, travel expenses, and consulting fees from 4tech Cardio, Abbott, Ablative Solutions, Ancora Heart, Append Medical, Bavaria Medizin Technologie GmbH, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Carag, CardiacDimensions, Cardimed, Celonova, Comed B.V., Contego, CVRx, Dinova, Edwards Lifesciences, Endologix, Hemoteq, Hangzhou Nuomao Medtech, Holistick Medical, Lifetech, Maquet Getinge Group, Medtronic, Mokita, Occlutech, Recor, RenalGuard, Terumo, Vascular Dynamics, Vectorious Medtech, Venus, Venock, and Vivasure Medical. Dr. Grasso has been a proctor for Abbott Vascular. Dr. Andreas has been a proctor for Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received advisory board fees from Medtronic. Dr. Guerrero has received research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi-Sankyo; and advisory fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Ancora, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi-Sankyo. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Transcatheter mitral valve implantation for mitral valve regurgitation is in the very early phase of development because of challenging anatomy and device dimensions. We describe the procedure of a transfemoral-transseptal implantation of the second-generation CardiAQ mitral valve bioprosthesis and 30-day follow-up., Methods and Results: The procedure was performed percutaneously, without any left extracorporeal circulatory support. The patient had severe mitral regurgitation with severely depressed ventricular function and other comorbidities. The patient was deemed extreme high risk for conventional cardiac surgery by a multidisciplinary team. The main procedural steps were the creation of an arteriovenous loop with an exchange nitinol wire, and the use of a customised "steerable snare system" to facilitate the catheter delivery system into the mitral annulus. Transoesophageal echocardiography and fluoroscopy were utilised for device positioning and deployment. The mitral valve prosthesis was implanted with mild mitral regurgitation. The postoperative course was uneventful and at 30-day follow-up the patient is in NYHA Class I, with good function of the mitral valve bioprosthesis., Conclusions: This procedure shows that percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter mitral valve implantation is feasible, safe and successful. Further experience is needed to render this procedure clinically available.

Objectives: As many as 50% of patients with severe symptomatic mitral valve regurgitation are denied surgical valve replacement or repair due to high operative risk. We describe an early series of cases of transcatheter implantation with a CardiAQ™ mitral valve via a transapical approach., Methods: Three consecutive patients with an Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) mortality score of >22% were selected for transcatheter mitral valve implantation (TMVI) on compassionate grounds. All patients were elderly, had severe mitral regurgitation (MR), were in Class IV heart failure and deemed unsuitable for the MitraClip. Two of the patients had functional MR in the setting of ischaemic cardiomyopathy with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40%, deemed while the remaining patient had chordal rupture with extensive anterior leaflet flail (preserved LVEF). Comorbidities included previous coronary artery bypass surgery (n = 2), severe pulmonary hypertension (n = 1) and moderate to severe chronic renal failure (n = 3). A CardiAQ mitral valve was implanted using fluoroscopy and transoesophageal (TEE) guidance via a standard transapical approach., Results: Accurate prosthesis positioning and deployment with immediate elimination of the MR was achieved in all 3 cases. Two patients made full clinical recovery and were discharged home. Post-procedural TEE performed on Days 1, 30 and 60 days showed good valve function, stable valve position and minimal LVOT gradient. One patient expired on the postoperative day 9 due to pneumonia., Conclusions: TMVI using the CardiAQ™ device via a transapical approach is feasible and effective., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Background: Data regarding the influence of different levels of renal dysfunction on clinical and echocardiographic results of MitraClip therapy are scarce. We aimed to evaluate the impact of baseline advance renal failure in the outcomes of a cohort of patients treated with MitraClip., Methods and Results: We analyzed data from a multicenter registry of 173 patients treated with MitraClip between 2009 and 2012. Patients were classified as advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD, creatinine clearance [CrCl] <30 ml/min, group 1, n=20), moderate CKD (CrCl 30-60 ml/min, group 2, n=78) and normal renal function (CrCl >60 ml/min, group 3, n=75). Twenty patients (11.5%) presented advanced CKD. Procedural success was equal in the 3 groups (95.0% group 1, 100% in group 2 and 96.0% in group 3, p=0.180). Post-procedural MR and NYHA class at 1 month (MR ≥ 3+5.0% vs. 0% vs. 4.0% p=0.190 and NYHA>II 40.0% vs. 21.0% vs. 18.3%, p=0.101) and 6 months (MR ≥ 3+0% vs. 13.0% vs. 2.7%, p=0.330; and NYHA class>II 54.5% vs. 26.9% vs. 25.6%, p=0.298) did not differ between groups. However, patients in group 1 experienced higher frequency of the composite end-point of mortality or readmission at 16.2 ± 11.1 months of follow-up (HR 4.8, CI 95% 1.1-21.3)., Conclusion: Advanced CKD is linked to an excess of cardiac adverse events. This should be judiciously taken into account when selecting patients for MitraClip., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Knowledge regarding gender-specific results of percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair is scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate gender differences in outcomes in a cohort of patients treated with MitraClip implantation. A multicenter registry of 173 patients treated with MitraClip prostheses from 2009 to 2012 at 3 experienced centers was performed. One hundred nine patients (63%) were men. Men were younger (mean age 73 ± 10 vs 79 ± 9 years, p = 0.001) and had a higher prevalence of previous coronary bypass graft surgery (34% vs 13%, p = 0.002), previous myocardial infarction (46% vs 20%, p = 0.001), and diabetes mellitus (26% vs 11%, p = 0.020). There were no differences regarding New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class before the intervention (NYHA class III or IV in 95% of men vs 97% of women, p = 0.472) or the cause of mitral regurgitation (MR) (functional in 58% of men vs 48% of women, p = 0.233). Men exhibited significantly larger ventricles (mean indexed left ventricular end-systolic diameter 2.4 ± 0.8 vs 2.0 ± 1.6 cm/m(2), p = 0.002, and mean indexed left ventricular end-diastolic volume 92.7 ± 46.1 vs 59.9 ± 24.6 ml/m(2), p <0.001). At 1 month, there were no differences between groups in the reduction of MR or NYHA functional class (MR grade ≤2+ in 98.2% of men vs 96.8% of women, p = 0.586, and NYHA class ≤II in 78.3% of men vs 77% of women, p = 0.851). At 6 months, results were maintained (MR grade ≤2+ in 89.5% of men vs 96.8% of women, p = 0.414, and NYHA class ≤II in 73.1% of men vs 74.2% of women, p = 0.912). After a mean follow-up period of 16.1 ± 11.1 months, no difference was found between groups in the incidence of death or admission for heart failure (log-rank p = 0.798). In conclusion, MitraClip implantation seems to be an equally safe and effective treatment of MR in men and women., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the clinical and echocardiographic results of MitraClip implantation in noncentral degenerative mitral regurgitation (dMR) compared with central dMR., Background: It is unknown whether the use of MitraClip therapy in noncentral dMR is as safe and effective as in central dMR., Methods: We analyzed a multicenter registry of 173 patients treated with the MitraClip and compared results of central and noncentral dMR., Results: Seventy-nine patients (age 79.2 ± 8.0 years, 58.2% men) had dMR. Forty-nine patients (62%) had central dMR, with the remainder classified as noncentral dMR (n = 30, 38%). Patients with noncentral dMR had a wider pre-procedural vena contracta (8.5 ± 2.0 mm vs. 6.9 ± 2.2 mm, p = 0.039) and higher systolic pulmonary pressure (57.9 ± 18.0 vs. 47.3 ± 13.0 mm Hg, p = 0.019). Procedural success was the same in both groups (95.5% central vs. 96.7% noncentral, p = 0.866). Post-procedural MR and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class at 1 month (MR ≤2, 96.0% vs. 96.6%, p = 0.866, and NYHA functional class ≤II, 81.6% vs. 90.0%, p = 0.335) and 6 months (95.2% central vs. 91.7% noncentral, p = 0.679; and NYHA functional class >II, 21.1% vs. 0%, p = 0.128) did not differ between groups. There were also no differences in serious post-procedural adverse events: partial clip detachment (central n = 1 [2.0%] vs. noncentral n = 1 [3.3%], p = 1.000), death (5.4% central vs. 13.0% noncentral, p = 0.298), or heart failure admission (10.8% central vs. 8.7% noncentral, p = 0.791)., Conclusions: In experienced centers, MitraClip treatment can be performed safely and effectively in both central and noncentral dMR., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)