Search

Aims Severe mitral regurgitation (MR) following acute myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with high mortality rates and has inconclusive recommendations in clinical guidelines. We aimed to report the international experience of patients with secondary MR following acute MI and compare the outcomes of those treated conservatively, surgically, and percutaneously. Methods and results Retrospective international registry of consecutive patients with at least moderate-to-severe MR following MI treated in 21 centres in North America, Europe, and the Middle East. The registry included patients treated conservatively and those having surgical mitral valve repair or replacement (SMVR) or percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) using edge-to-edge repair. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. A total of 471 patients were included (43% female, age 73 ± 11 years): 205 underwent interventions, of whom 106 were SMVR and 99 PMVR. Patients who underwent mitral valve intervention were in a worse clinical state (Killip class ≥3 in 60% vs. 43%, P < 0.01), but yet had lower in-hospital and 1-year mortality compared with those treated conservatively [11% vs. 27%, P < 0.01 and 16% vs. 35%, P < 0.01; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18–0.46, P < 0.01]. Surgical mitral valve repair or replacement was performed earlier than PMVR [median of 12 days from MI date (interquartile range 5–19) vs. 19 days (10–40), P < 0.01]. The immediate procedural success did not differ between SMVR and PMVR (92% vs. 93%, P = 0.53). However, in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were significantly higher in SMVR than in PMVR (16% vs. 6%, P = 0.03 and 31% vs. 17%, P = 0.04; adjusted HR 3.75, 95% CI 1.55–9.07, P < 0.01). Conclusions Early intervention may mitigate the poor prognosis associated with conservative therapy in patients with post-MI MR. Percutaneous mitral valve repair can serve as an alternative for surgery in reducing MR for high-risk patients.

Objectives To assess outcomes in patients with acute mitral regurgitation (MR) following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who received percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) with the MitraClip device and to compare outcomes of patients who developed cardiogenic shock (CS) to those who did not (non-CS). Background Acute MR after AMI may lead to CS and is associated with high mortality. Methods This registry analyzed patients with MR after AMI who were treated with MitraClip at 18 centers within eight countries between January 2016 and February 2020. Patients were stratified into CS and non-CS groups. Primary outcomes were mortality and rehospitalization due to heart failure. Secondary outcomes were acute procedural success, functional improvement, and MR reduction. Multivariable Cox regression analysis evaluated association of CS with clinical outcomes. Results Among 93 patients analyzed (age 70.3 +/- 10.2 years), 50 patients (53.8%) experienced CS before PMVR. Mortality at 30 days (10% CS vs. 2.3% non-CS; p = .212) did not differ between groups. After median follow-up of 7 months (IQR 2.5-17 months), the combined event mortality/re-hospitalization was similar (28% CS vs. 25.6% non-CS; p = .793). Likewise, immediate procedural success (90% CS vs. 93% non-CS; p = .793) and need for reintervention (CS 6% vs. non-CS 2.3%, p = .621) or re-admission due to HF (CS 13% vs. NCS 23%, p = .253) at 3 months did not differ. CS was not independently associated with the combined end-point (hazard ratio 1.1; 95% CI, 0.3-4.6; p = .889). Conclusions Patients found to have significant MR during their index hospitalization for AMI had similar clinical outcomes with PMVR whether they presented in or out of cardiogenic shock, provided initial hemodynamic stabilization was first achieved before PMVR.

Patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR) after myocardial infarction (MI) have an increased risk of mortality. Transcatheter mitral valve repair may therefore be a suitable therapy. However, data on clinical outcomes of patients in an acute setting are scarce, especially those with reduced left ventricle (LV) dysfunction. We conducted a multinational, collaborative data analysis from 21 centers for patients who were, within 90 days of acute MI, treated with MitraClip due to severe MR. The cohort was divided according to median left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF)—35%. Included in the study were 105 patients. The mean age was 71 ± 10 years. Patients in the LVEF &lt, 35% group were younger but with comparable Euroscore II, multivessel coronary artery disease, prior MI and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Procedure time was comparable and acute success rate was high in both groups (94% vs. 90%, p = 0.728). MR grade was significantly reduced in both groups along with an immediate reduction in left atrial V-wave, pulmonary artery pressure and improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class. In-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were not significantly different between the two groups (11% vs. 7%, p = 0.51 and 19% vs. 12%, p = 0.49) and neither was the 3-month re-hospitalization rate. In conclusion, MitraClip intervention in patients with acute severe functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) due to a recent MI in an acute setting is safe and feasible. Even patients with severe LV dysfunction may benefit from transcatheter mitral valve intervention and should not be excluded.