Search

Introduction: The role of losartan in preventing aortic root dilatation in Marfan syndrome has been evaluated in many clinical trials; however, the results are conflicting. Methods: We performed a computerized search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases through February 2019 for randomized clinical trials evaluating the effect of losartan in patients with Marfan syndrome. The main outcome was the change in the aortic root diameter in the losartan versus control groups. Results: Our final analysis included seven randomized trials with a total of 1352 patients and average weighted follow-up of 37.8 months. Change in aortic root diameter was significantly smaller with losartan compared with control [weighted means: 0.44 vs. 0.58 mm, mean difference (MD) = −0.13; 95% CI −0.24 to −0.02; p = 0.02]. Subgroup analysis according to the control group showed no significant subgroup interaction when comparing losartan with beta-blockers versus with standard therapy (pinteraction= 0.27). The composite outcome of aortic surgery, dissection or mortality did not differ between the losartan and control groups (risk ratio = 1.03; 95% CI 0.72–1.49, p = 0.86). Conclusion: In this meta-analysis including seven randomized trials, the use of losartan was associated with a significantly smaller change in aortic root diameter in patients with Marfan syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remain debatable.Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical outcomes with aspirin for primary prevention of CVD after the recent publication of large trials adding >45,000 individuals to the published data.Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing clinical outcomes with aspirin versus control for primary prevention with follow-up duration of ≥1 year were included. Efficacy outcomes included all-cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and major adverse cardiovascular events. Safety outcomes included major bleeding, intracranial bleeding, fatal bleeding, and major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Random effects DerSimonian-Laird risk ratios (RRs) for outcomes were calculated.Results: A total of 15 randomized controlled trials including 165,502 participants (aspirin n = 83,529, control n = 81,973) were available for analysis. Compared with control, aspirin was associated with similar all-cause death (RR: 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93 to 1.01), CV death (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.00), and non-CV death (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.05), but a lower risk of nonfatal MI (RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.94), TIA (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.89), and ischemic stroke (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.95). Aspirin was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding (RR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.33 to 1.69), intracranial bleeding (RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.55), and major GI bleeding (RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.34 to 1.73), with similar rates of fatal bleeding (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.55) compared with the control subjects. Total cancer and cancer-related deaths were similar in both groups within the follow-up period of the study.Conclusions: Aspirin for primary prevention reduces nonfatal ischemic events but significantly increases nonfatal bleeding events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is a device therapy for systolic heart failure (HF) in patients with narrow QRS. We aimed to perform an updated meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy and safety of CCM therapy. Methods. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) between January 2001 and June 2018. Outcomes of interest were peak oxygen consumption (peak VO2), 6-Minute Walk Distance (6MWD), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), HF hospitalizations, cardiac arrhythmias, pacemaker/ICD malfunctioning, all-cause hospitalizations, and mortality. Data were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR). Results. Four RCTs including 801 patients (CCM n = 394) were available for analysis. The mean age was 59.63 ± 0.84 years, mean ejection fraction was 29.14 ± 1.22%, and mean QRS duration was 106.23 ± 1.65 msec. Mean follow-up duration was six months. CCM was associated with improved MLWHFQ (SMD -0.69, p = 0.0008). There were no differences in HF hospitalizations (OR 0.76, p = 0.12), 6MWD (SMD 0.67, p = 0.10), arrhythmias (OR 1.40, p = 0.14), pacemaker/ICD malfunction/sensing defect (OR 2.23, p = 0.06), all-cause hospitalizations (OR 0.73, p = 0.33), or all-cause mortality (OR 1.04, p = 0.92) between the CCM and non-CCM groups. Conclusions. Short-term treatment with CCM may improve MLFHQ without significant difference in 6MWD, arrhythmic events, HF hospitalizations, all-cause hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality. There is a trend towards increased pacemaker/ICD device malfunction. Larger RCTs might be needed to determine if the CCM therapy will be beneficial with longer follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We sought to examine the impact of coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on left ventricular (LV) function.Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published between January 1980 and November 2017 on the impact of successful CTO PCI on LV function.Results: A total of 34 observational studies including 2735 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Over a weighted mean follow-up of 7.9 months, successful CTO PCI was associated with an increase in LV ejection fraction by 3.8% (95%CI 3.0-4.7, P < 0.0001, I2  = 45%). In secondary analysis of 15 studies (1248 patients) that defined CTOs as occlusions of at least 3-month duration and reported follow-up of at least 3-months after the procedure, successful CTO PCI was associated with improvement in LV ejection fraction by 4.3% (95%CI [3.1, 5.6], P < 0.0001). In the 10 studies (502 patients) that reported LV end-systolic volume, successful CTO PCI was associated with a decrease in LV end-systolic volume by 4 mL, (95%CI -6.0 to -2.1, P < 0.0001, I2  = 0%). LV end-diastolic volume was reported in 9 studies with 403 patients and did not significantly change after successful CTO PCI (-2.3 mL, 95%CI -5.7 to 1.2 mL, P = 0.19, I2  = 0%).Conclusions: Successful CTO PCI is associated with a statistically significant improvement in LV ejection fraction and decrease in LV end-systolic volume, that may reflect a beneficial effect of CTO recanalization on LV remodeling. The clinical implications of these findings warrant further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Current ventricular tachycardia (VT) management in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) includes optimal medical therapy, ICDs device therapy, and antiarrhythmic medications. Data about outcomes of catheter ablation (CA) in these patients is scarce. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of RCTs to compare outcomes of CA vs conventional management of VT in ICM patients who had ICD. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of published RCTs between January 1970 and December 2016 were performed. Random effects DerSimonian-Laird risk ratios (RR) were calculated. Sensitivity analyses using fixed-effects summary odds ratios (OR) were performed using Peto model. Outcomes of interest were: all-cause mortality (ACM), cardiovascular death (CVD), CV disease-related hospitalization, VT storms, and ICD shocks. Results 4 RCTs were identified (521 patients (261 had CA), mean age: 66.4 ± 1.7 years, 91.5% male, mean follow-up: 19 months). No difference observed between VT ablation and conventional management regarding ACM (RR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.66–1.32, p = 0.70) or CVD (RR 0.82, 95% CI, 0.52–1.29, p = 0.39). VT ablation was associated with less CV disease-related hospitalization (RR 0.72, 95% CI, 0.54–0.96, p = 0.02), VT storms (RR 0.71, 95% CI, 0.52–0.97, p = 0.03), and trend towards reducing ICD shocks (RR 0.59, 95% CI, 0.34–1.05, p = 0.07). In sensitivity analysis using fixed-effects OR, CA was associated with significant reduction in ICD shocks. Conclusion In patients with ICM, VT ablation reduced CV disease-related hospitalization, VT storms, and ICD shocks when compared to conventional management with no mortality benefit over a relatively short mean follow-up period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The optimal interventional technique for addressing coronary bifurcation lesions is debatable. Long-term clinical outcomes with provisional stenting (PS) compared with a two-stent (TS) strategy for bifurcation lesions are scarce. We aim to perform the first meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to explore long-term outcomes comparing both strategies.Methods: An electronic search was performed for online databases until August 2016 for RCTs comparing PS with TS for bifurcation lesions reporting outcomes at 1 year of follow-up or more. Random effects model risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for outcomes of interest.Results: Eight RCTs with a total of 2778 patients reported long-term clinical outcomes. At mean follow-up of 3.0±1.6 years, PS was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.98; p=0.04) compared with TS for bifurcation lesions. No difference was observed with PS compared with TS regarding major adverse cardiac events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularisation (TLR) or stent thrombosis (ST). In a sensitivity analysis limited to trials with follow-up duration ≥3 years, PS was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR=0.57; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.88; p=0.01), MACE (RR=0.71; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.97; p=0.03) and MI (RR=0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.96; p=0.04) compared with TS, at mean follow-up of 4.6±0.7 years. The risk of TLR and ST remained similar with both strategies (RR=0.81; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.15; p=0.24; and RR=0.75; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.84; p=0.67 respectively). Meta-regression analyses identified increased risk of MACE with PS in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (p=0.05).Conclusion: PS may be associated with a long-term mortality benefit compared with a TS strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Data regarding long-term clinical outcomes with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) versus second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are scarce.Methods: We searched online databases until October 2016 for studies comparing BVS versus DES reporting outcomes at 2 years of follow-up. We performed a meta-analysis comparing BVS with DES across the spectrum of coronary artery disease (CAD). Random effects model OR was calculated for outcomes of interest including device-oriented composite events (DOCE; defined as composite of cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR)), all-cause mortality, definite stent thrombosis, TV-MI and TLR.Results: A total of 2360 patients enrolled in five studies met criteria for inclusion in this analysis. At 2 years, BVS was associated with higher rates of DOCE (6.9% vs 4.5%, OR=1.53; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.23; p=0.02), absolute risk increase (ARI) 2.4%, relative risk increase (RRI) 53%, TV-MI (4% vs 1.8%, OR=1.94; 95% CI 1.02 to 3.67; p=0.04), ARI 2.2%, RRI 122% and definite stent thrombosis (2.1% vs 0.6%, OR=3.39; 95% CI 1.46 to 7.88; p=0.005), ARI 1.5%, RRI 250% compared with DES. No differences in all-cause mortality (OR=0.86; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.81; p=0.80) and TLR (OR=1.44; 95% CI 0.81 to 2.54; p=0.21) were observed between both groups.Conclusions: BVS may be associated with worse long-term clinical outcomes compared with DES. Randomised clinical trials are encouraged to expeditiously report long-term safety and efficacy outcomes and identify predictors of adverse events with BVS compared with DES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Large randomized trials have shown conflicting evidence regarding the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Systematic reviews have been limited by incomplete data and inclusion of observational studies. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the cardiovascular safety of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials that compared DPP-4 inhibitors versus placebo and reported cardiovascular outcomes. The main outcome assessed in this analysis was heart failure. Other outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were primarily constructed using Peto's model. Results: A total of 90 trials with 66,730 patients were included. Compared with placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a non-significant increased risk of heart failure [OR 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.25, P = 0.07] at a mean of 108 weeks. The risk of all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.12, P = 0.53), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.14, P = 0.72), myocardial infarction (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88-1.09, P = 0.69), and ischemic stroke (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85-1.15, P = 0.92) was similar between both groups. Conclusion: In patients with type 2 diabetes, the safety profile of DPP-4 inhibitors is similar to placebo. As a class, there is only weak evidence for an increased risk of heart failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The impact of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type II diabetes mellitus (DM) is not well established. Methods We searched electronic databases from inception through July 2016 for randomized, placebo-controlled trials, involving SGLT-2 inhibitors. Fixed-effects summary odds ratios (OR) were constructed using Peto model. Results Eighty-one trials with a total of 37,195 patients were included. The mean follow-up was 89 weeks. Compared with placebo, SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.59–0.86; P < 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.53–0.84; P = 0.001), and heart failure (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.51–0.87; P = 0.003), but a similar risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.74–1.09; P = 0.29) and stroke/transient ischemic attack (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.87–1.37; P = 0.47). The reduction in all-cause mortality was noticed with empagliflozin (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.54–0.81; P < 0.001), but not with other SGLT-2 inhibitors (OR dapagliflozin 1.37; 95% CI 0.71–2.62; P = 0.35; OR canagliflozin 0.82; 95% CI 0.41–1.68; P = 0.59; OR luseogliflozin 4.6; 95% CI 0.07–284.25; P = 0.47; and OR ipragliflozin 4.73; 95% CI 0.08–283.14; P = 0.46) (P interaction = 0.19). Potential harm was observed with dapagliflozin on cardiovascular mortality (OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.92–5.04, P = 0.08). Conclusions In patients with type II DM, SGLT-2 inhibitors appeared to reduce both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, primarily due to reduction in the risk of heart failure. The benefit was only seen with empagliflozin. There was suggestion of potential harm with dapagliflozin, thus future trials are needed to ascertain the cardiovascular safety of other agents in this class. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For decades, unfractionated heparin ( UFH) has been widely used in catheterization laboratories for anticoagulation for percutaneous coronary intervention ( PCI). The direct thrombin inhibitors, bivalirudin, has emerged as an alternative to UFH for PCI procedures, due to its lower bleeding risk. More recently, randomized trials and meta-analyses questioned the efficacy of bivalirudin, and demonstrated that bivalirudin might be associated with a higher incidence of ischemic events and in particular stent thrombosis. In this review, we discuss the pharmacology of bivalirudin along with the clinical evidence comparing bivalirudin versus UFH in patients undergoing PCI for various indications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in small-vessel coronary artery disease (SVD) remains controversial.Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the outcomes of DCB vs. DES in de-novo SVD. We included a total of 5 RCTs (1459 patients), with (DCB n = 734 and DES n = 725).Results: Over a median follow-up duration of 6 months, DCB was associated with smaller late lumen loss (LLL) compared with DES (mean difference -0.12 mm) (95% confidence intervals (CI) [-0.21, -0.03 mm], p = 0.01). Over a median follow-up of 12 months, both modalities had similar risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (8.7% vs. 10.2%; odds ratio (OR): 0.94, 95% CI [0.49-1.79], p = 084), all-cause mortality (1.17% vs. 2.38%; OR: 0.53, 95% CI [0.16-1.75], p = 0.30), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (7.9% vs. 3.9%; OR: 1.26, 95% CI [0.51-3.14], p = 0.62), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (8.2% vs. 7.8%; OR: 1.06, 95% CI [0.40-2.82], p = 0.91). DCBs were associated with lower risk of myocardial infarction (MI) compared with DES (1.55% vs. 3.31%; OR: 0.48, 95% CI [0.23-1.00], p = 0.05, I2 = 0%).Conclusion: PCI of SVD with DCBs is associated with smaller LLL, lower risk of MI, and similar risk of MACE, death, TLR, and TVR compared with DES over one year. DCB appears as an attractive alternative to DES in patients with de-novo SVD, but long-term clinical data are still needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) is associated with high mortality rates. Data has shown that intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support does not provide a survival benefit over optimal medical therapy in AMICS. Despite lack of supportive evidence, IABP is still commonly used in these clinical situations. The Impella percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) (Abiomed, Denver, MA) rapidly deploys superior mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with AMICS. However, the safety and efficacy of Impella in AMICS is a matter of ongoing investigation, and its role in AMICS management is not yet fully established.Methods: The databases of Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central databases were searched from inception to March 2020. Relevant randomized trials and observational studies comparing Impella versus IABP in AMICS were identified and a meta-analysis was performed using the random effect model. The efficacy endpoint of interest was short-term mortality (defined as in-hospital or 30-day mortality). The safety endpoints of interest were major bleeding, limb complications, stroke and hemolysis.Results: A total of 2 randomized trials and 5 observational studies with 3921 patients were included. No difference in short-term mortality between the two groups [RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.87-1.33, P = 0.49] was found. For safety endpoints, Impella was associated with significantly higher incidence of major bleeding [RR: 2.03, 95% CI 1.56-2.64, P < 0.0001], limb complications [RR: 3.67, 95% CI 1.56-8.65, P = 0.003] as well as hemolysis [RR: 9.46, 95% CI 1.75-51.22, P = 0.009] compared with IABP. No significant difference was observed for the incidence of stroke [RR: 1.07 95% CI 0.34-3.31 P = 0.91].Conclusion: Impella support in AMICS patients was associated with a significantly increased risk of bleeding, limb complications and hemolysis without an improved short-term survival advantage compared with IABP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background: Radial access (RA) is increasingly used in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention with encouraging results. However, there are concerns about its safety and efficacy because of higher complexity and the need for strong guide catheter support. Methods and Results: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies published through November 2018 reporting the outcomes of RA versus femoral access in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcomes included major bleeding, access-site complications, in-hospital major adverse events, and technical success. Nine observational studies with 10 590 patients (10 617 lesions) were included in the meta-analysis. CTO lesions attempted using RA had lower Japan-CTO score (2.3±1.2 versus 2.5±1.3; P <0.001). Use of RA was associated with similar technical success (78.7% versus 78.5%; odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.94–1.31; P =0.24; I 2=23%), lower risk of access-site complications (0.73% versus 1.79%; odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22–0.51; P <0.001; I 2=0%) and major bleeding (0.18% versus 0.9%; odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10–0.45; P <0.001; I 2=0%), and similar risk of in-hospital adverse events and in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.12–1.07; P =0.07; I 2=0%) as compared to femoral access. Results were similar when analyzing radial-only versus any femoral access and when excluding the largest study. Conclusions: As compared with femoral access, RA is used in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention of less complex lesions and is associated with fewer access-site complications and major bleeding and comparable technical success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) remains associated with inferior clinical outcomes and an increased risk of restenosis compared with non-diabetics even in the era of drug-eluting stents (DES). The outcomes with drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in diabetic patients have received limited study.Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of all studies published between January 2000 and January 2019 reporting the outcomes with DCB vs. DES after PCI of de-novo coronary lesions in diabetic patients. Outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), binary restenosis by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), and late lumen loss (LLL).Results: Three studies with 378 patients (440 lesions) were included in the meta-analysis. During 17.3 ± 11.3 months follow-up, DCB were associated with a similar risk of MACE (OR: 0.63, 95% CI [0.36, 1.12], p = 0.11), TLR (OR: 0.51, 95% CI [0.25, 1.06] p = 0.07), binary restenosis (OR: 0.42, 95% CI [0.09, 1.92], p = 0.26), and LLL (mean difference: -0.13 mm, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.14], p = 0.34) compared with DES.Conclusion: In diabetic patients with de-novo coronary lesions undergoing PCI, DCBs are associated with similar outcomes compared with first-generation DES, with a signal toward potential benefit in lowering target lesion revascularization. Further randomized studies are needed to compare the newer-generation DCBs and DES in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is a promising device therapy for heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction and narrow QRS. However, outcomes have varied among different studies. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized trials between January 2001 and June 2018 was performed. Outcomes of interest were: peak oxygen consumption (peak VO2), quality of life (QOL) measured by Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), 6 Minute Walk Distance (6MWD), worsening HF hospitalizations, adverse events, and all-cause mortality. Data was expressed as mean difference or random effects DerSimonian-Laird risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Four randomized studies enrolling a total of 801 patients, including 394 patients with CCM, were identified. Baseline demographics were: mean age 59.63 ± 0.84 years, 75.3% males, 63.7% ischemic cardiomyopathy, mean ejection fraction 29.14 ± 1.22%, and mean QRS duration 106.23 ± 1.65 msec. CCM was associated with improved peak VO2 (mean difference 0.71, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.21 mL/kg/min, p = 0.006), 6MWD (mean difference 18.34, 95% CI 6.01 to 30.68 meters, p = 0.004) and QOL measured by MLHFQ (mean difference –7.86, 95% CI –10.77 to –4.95, p < 0.00001). There was no difference in HF hospitalizations (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06, p = 0.14), adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.10, p = 0.33), or mortality (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.46, p = 0.46) between the CCM and non-CCM groups. Conclusions: In patients with severe heart failure and narrow QRS, CCM improves peak VO2, 6MWD and QOL when compared to optimal medical management alone, but with no mortality benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) is a novel treatment option for patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR) who are at high risk for surgery. While left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction is associated with poor outcomes after MV surgeries, its impact on outcomes after TMVR is unknown. Hypothesis: To examine outcomes with TMVR using MitraClip® device in patients with severe MR and LV systolic dysfunction. Methods: Systematic electronic review was performed from January 2010 to December 2017 for studies that reported outcomes with TMVR in patients with LV ejection fraction (EF) <30% versus ≥30%. The primary outcome was long-term (12-months) all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included stroke, MV re-intervention and short-term (30-days) mortality. DerSimonian and Laird method was used for estimation of summary risk ratios (RR). Results: Five prospective observational studies (1616 patients, mean age 76.38, 73.04 % men, 64% with LVEF >30%) met our inclusion criteria. Patients with LVEF<30% were at increased risk of long-term mortality compared to those with LVEF≥30% (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.25 - 2.08, P=0.0002). No difference was observed between both groups regarding the risk of 30-days mortality (P=0.19), stroke (P=0.59), MV re-intervention (P=0.07). Conclusions: In patients with severe MR undergoing TMVR with MitraClip®, severe LV systolic dysfunction (EF <30%) may be associated with increased long-term mortality compared to patients with LV EF ≥ 30%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]