Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair: Outcome Improvement with Operator Experience and a Second-Generation Device.
MitraClip
mitral regurgitation
transcatheter mitral valve repair
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Feb 2021
12 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
21
12
2020
revised:
14
01
2021
accepted:
05
02
2021
entrez:
6
3
2021
pubmed:
7
3
2021
medline:
7
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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; The present paper shows that contemporary clinical outcomes of patients undergoing PMVR with the Mitraclip system have improved over time.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIM
OBJECTIVE
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
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
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;
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The present paper shows that contemporary clinical outcomes of patients undergoing PMVR with the Mitraclip system have improved over time.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33673247
pii: jcm10040734
doi: 10.3390/jcm10040734
pmc: PMC7918912
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Int J Cardiol. 2018 Oct 15;269:33-39
pubmed: 29929931
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Sep 2;64(9):875-84
pubmed: 25169171
N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 13;379(24):2297-2306
pubmed: 30145927
N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 13;379(24):2307-2318
pubmed: 30280640
Eur J Heart Fail. 2019 Feb;21(2):182-192
pubmed: 30178493
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2014 Dec;67(12):1007-12
pubmed: 25432711
Eur J Heart Fail. 2012 Sep;14(9):1050-5
pubmed: 22685268
Int J Cardiol. 2019 Feb 15;277:35-41
pubmed: 30153994
EuroIntervention. 2016 Sep 18;12(Y):Y58-60
pubmed: 27640035
Am J Cardiol. 2013 May 15;111(10):1482-7
pubmed: 23433761
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Sep 17;62(12):1052-1061
pubmed: 23747789
N Engl J Med. 2011 Apr 14;364(15):1395-406
pubmed: 21463154
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Aug 1;90(2):313-320
pubmed: 27649934
Clin Res Cardiol. 2014 Nov;103(11):930-7
pubmed: 24924580
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Dec 29;66(25):2844-2854
pubmed: 26718672