Search

Background and aim: Recent randomized data comparing percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) versus optimal medical treatment in patients with functional MR (FMR) seemed to highlight the importance of the learning curve not only for procedural outcomes but also for patient selection. The aim of the study was to compare a contemporary series of patients undergoing PMVR using a second-generation Mitraclip device (Mitraclip NT) with previous cohorts treated with a first-generation system. Methods: This multicenter study collected individual data from 18 centers between 2012 and 2017. The cohort was divided into three groups according to the use of the first-generation Mitraclip during the first (control-1) or second half (control-2) or the Mitraclip NT system. Results: A total of 545 consecutive patients were included in the study. Among all, 182 (33.3%), 183 (33.3%), and 180 (33.3%) patients underwent mitral repair in the control-1, control-2, and NT cohorts, respectively. Procedural success was achieved in 93.3% of patients without differences between groups. Major adverse events did not statistically differ among groups, but there was a higher rate of pericardial effusion in the control-1 group (4.3%, 0.6%, and 2.6%, respectively, p = 0.025). The composite endpoint of death, surgery, and admission for congestive heart failure (CHF) at 12 months was lower in the NT group (23.5% in control-1, 22.5% in control-2, and 8.3% in the NT group, p = 0.032). Conclusions: The present paper shows that contemporary clinical outcomes of patients undergoing PMVR with the Mitraclip system have improved over time.

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) could improve survival in functional mitral regurgitation (FMR), but it is necessary to consider the influence of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Therefore, we compare the outcomes after TMVR with Mitraclip&reg, between two groups according to LVEF. Methods: In an observational registry study, we compared the outcomes in patients with FMR who underwent TMVR with and without LVEF &lt, 30%. The primary endpoint was the combined one-year all-cause mortality and unplanned hospital readmissions due to HF. The secondary end-points were New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class and mitral regurgitation (MR) severity. Propensity-score matching was used to create two groups with the same baseline characteristics, except for baseline LVEF. Results: Among 535 FMR eligible patients, 144 patients with LVEF &lt, 30% (group 1) and 144 with LVEF &gt, 30% (group 2) had similar propensity scores and were included in the analyses. The primary study endpoint was significantlly higher in group 1 (33.3% vs. 9.4%, p = 0.002). There was a maintained improvement in secondary endpoints without significant differences among groups. Conclusion: FMR patients with LVEF &lt, 30% treated with MitraClip&reg, had higher mortality and readmissions than patients with LVEF &ge, 30% treated with the same device. However, both groups improved the NYHA functional class and MR severity.