Search

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve replacement offers a less-invasive alternative for high-risk patients with bioprosthetic valve failure. Limited experience exists in intermediate-risk patients. We aim to evaluate 1-year outcomes of the PARTNER 3 mitral valve-in-valve study., Methods: This prospective, single-arm, multicenter study enrolled symptomatic patients with a failing mitral bioprosthesis demonstrating greater than or equal to moderate stenosis and regurgitation and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score ≥3% and <8%. A balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve (SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences) was used via a transeptal approach. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause mortality and stroke at 1 year., Results: A total of 50 patients from 12 sites underwent mitral valve-in-valve from 2018 to 2021. The mean age was 70.1±9.7 years, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.1%±1.6%, and 54% were female. There were no primary end point events (mortality or stroke) through 1 year, and no left-ventricular outflow tract obstruction, endocarditis, or mitral valve reintervention was reported. Six patients (12%) required rehospitalization, including heart failure (n=2), minor procedural side effects (n=2), and valve thrombosis (n=2; both resolved with anticoagulation). An additional valve thrombosis was associated with no significant clinical sequelae. From baseline to 1 year, all subjects with available data had none/trace or mild (grade 1+) mitral regurgitation and the New York Heart Association class improved in 87.2% (41/47) of patients., Conclusions: Mitral valve-in-valve with a balloon-expandable valve via transseptal approach in intermediate-risk patients was associated with improved symptoms and quality of life, adequate transcatheter valve performance, and no mortality or stroke at 1-year follow-up., Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03193801., Competing Interests: Dr Malaisrie reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Terumo Medical Corporation and consulting/speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Terumo Medical Corporation, and Artivion; Dr Guerrero reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences; Dr Davidson reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular and consulting/speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences; Dr Williams reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific and consulting/speaker fees from Medtronic; Dr de Brito is a proctor for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific; Dr Shah reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular and consulting/speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences; Dr Kaneko reports consulting/speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; Dr Poon reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and consulting/speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Anteris; Dr Yu is an employee of Edwards Lifesciences; Dr Pibarot reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Pi-Cardia, and Cardiac Success; Dr Hahn reports speaker fees from Abbott Structural, Baylis Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Philips Healthcare; she has institutional consulting contracts for which she receives no direct compensation with Abbott Structural, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Novartis; she is Chief Scientific Officer for the Echocardiography Core Laboratory at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation for multiple industry-sponsored tricuspid valve trials, for which she receives no direct industry compensation; Dr Blanke reports consulting/speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences and LARALAB; Dr Leon reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott Vascular; Dr Mack has served as trial coprimary investigator for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular and has served as a study chair for Medtronic; Dr Zajarias reports consulting/speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. The other authors report no conflicts.

Aims: Patients affected by functional mitral regurgitation represent an increasingly high-risk population. Edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (TEER) has emerged as a promising treatment option for these patients. However, there is limited research on the comparative outcomes of TEER versus surgical mitral valve repair (SMVr). This study seeks to compare the demographics, complications, and outcomes of TEER and SMVr based on a real-world analysis of the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database., Methods and Results: In the NIS database, from the years 2016 to 2018, a total of 6233 and 2524 patients who underwent SMVr and TEER were selected, respectively. The mean ages of the patients were 65.68 years (SMVr) and 78.40 years (TEER) (p < 0.01). The mortality rate of patients who received SMVr was similar to that of patients who were treated with TEER (1.7% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.603). Patients who underwent SMVr more likely suffered from perioperative complications including cardiogenic shock (2.3% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001), cardiac arrest (1.7% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.025), and cerebrovascular infarction (0.9% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.013). The average length of hospital stay was longer (8.59 vs. 4.13 days, p < 0.001) for SMVr compared to TEER; however, the average cost of treatment was higher ($218 728.25 vs. $215 071.74, p = 0.031) for TEER compared to SMVr. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that SMVr was associated with worse adjusted cardiogenic shock (OR, 7.347 [95% CI, 3.574-15.105]; p < 0.01) and acute kidney injury (OR, 2.793 [95% CI, 2.356-3.311]; p < 0.01)., Conclusion: Patients who underwent TEER demonstrated a notable decrease in postoperative complications and a shorter hospitalization period when compared to those who underwent SMVr., (© 2024 The Author(s). Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: In EVEREST II (Endovascular Valve Edge-to-Edge Repair Study), treatment of mitral regurgitation (MR) with a novel percutaneous device showed superior safety compared with surgery, but less effective reduction in MR at 1 year.Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the final 5-year clinical outcomes and durability of percutaneous mitral valve (MV) repair with the MitraClip device compared with conventional MV surgery.Methods: Patients with grade 3+ or 4+ MR were randomly assigned to percutaneous repair with the device or conventional MV surgery in a 2:1 ratio (178:80). Patients prospectively consented to 5 years of follow-up.Results: At 5 years, the rate of the composite endpoint of freedom from death, surgery, or 3+ or 4+ MR in the as-treated population was 44.2% versus 64.3% in the percutaneous repair and surgical groups, respectively (p = 0.01). The difference was driven by increased rates of 3+ to 4+ MR (12.3% vs. 1.8%; p = 0.02) and surgery (27.9% vs. 8.9%; p = 0.003) with percutaneous repair. After percutaneous repair, 78% of surgeries occurred within the first 6 months. Beyond 6 months, rates of surgery and moderate-to-severe MR were comparable between groups. Five-year mortality rates were 20.8% and 26.8% (p = 0.4) for percutaneous repair and surgery, respectively. In multivariable analysis, treatment strategy was not associated with survival.Conclusions: Patients treated with percutaneous repair more commonly required surgery for residual MR during the first year after treatment, but between 1- and 5-year follow-up, comparably low rates of surgery for MV dysfunction with either percutaneous or surgical therapy endorse the durability of MR reduction with both repair techniques. (EVEREST II Pivotal Study High Risk Registry; NCT00209274). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]