scholarly journals Health Status After Transcatheter Mitral-Valve Repair in Heart Failure and Secondary Mitral Regurgitation

2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (17) ◽  
pp. 2123-2132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne V. Arnold ◽  
Khaja M. Chinnakondepalli ◽  
John A. Spertus ◽  
Elizabeth A. Magnuson ◽  
Suzanne J. Baron ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Refik Kavsur ◽  
Maximilian Spieker ◽  
Christos Iliadis ◽  
Clemens Metze ◽  
Moritz Transier ◽  
...  

Background Optimizing risk stratification in patients undergoing transcatheter mitral valve repair is an ongoing challenge. The Mitral Regurgitation International Database (MIDA) score represents a user‐friendly mortality risk stratification tool that is validated on a large‐scale registry of patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR). We here assessed the potential benefit of the MIDA risk score for patients with functional or degenerative MR undergoing transcatheter mitral valve repair. Methods and Results In total, 680 patients undergoing MitraClip implantation were stratified according to MIDA score tertiles into a low (0–7), intermediate (8–9), and a high (10–12) MIDA score group. MR was assessed in follow‐up echocardiograms in 416 patients at 323±169 days after transcatheter mitral valve repair. During 2‐year follow‐up, 8.2% (15/182) of patients with low, 21.3% (64/300) with intermediate, and 26.3% (52/198) with high MIDA score died (log‐rank test P <0.001). Hazard of all‐cause mortality increased by 13% (95% CI, 3%–25%) with every additional point of the MIDA score. Subanalysis of 431 patients with functional MR showed similar results. Furthermore, rates of a combined end point of mortality and hospitalization for heart failure were higher with increasing MIDA score (30% [54/182], 38% [113/300] and 48% [94/198], respectively, log‐rank test P =0.001). Frequency of residual MR ≥II at follow‐up increased with increasing MIDA score group (33%, 44%, and 59%, respectively, P <0.001). Conclusions The MIDA mortality risk score maintains its predictive utility in patients undergoing transcatheter mitral valve repair, regardless of MR cause. Moreover, it was predictive of worse event‐free survival regarding a combined end point of mortality and hospitalization for heart failure, and was associated with postprocedural residual MR ≥II and MR recurrence.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali O Malik ◽  
Amanda Stebbins ◽  
Vittal Hejjaji ◽  
Philip Jones ◽  
David J Cohen ◽  
...  

Background: Clinical trials have demonstrated that transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) with MitraClip within carefully selected enrolling institutions improves the health status of patients with severe mitral regurgitation. The real-world institution-level variability in health status outcomes for this procedure remain unknown. Methods: Among patients who underwent TMVr at sites participating in the STS/ACC TVT registry from November 2013 to March 2019, health status was measured at baseline and 30 days with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Overall Summary (KCCQ-OS) score. Institution-level variability in 30-day change in KCCQ-OS was examined by calculating the median odds ratio (MOR) from a hierarchical logistic regression model, with ≥20-point improvement as the dependent variable. Results: Our analytic cohort included 12,415 patients (mean age 79.0 ± 9.5 years, 46.1% women, 89.5% White) from 339 sites. Overall mean KCCQ-OS scores were 43.0 ± 24.4 at baseline and 67.0 ± 24.9 at 30 days. There was substantial variability in the percentage of patients at each site, achieving a ≥20-point improvement in KCCQ-OS and in median change in 30-day KCCQ-OS by site; median 22.9, Interquartile Range 36.2 (Figure). The MOR for a ≥20-point improvement in 30-day KCCQ-OS across sites was 1.58 (95% CI 1.46-1.68), which was not reduced after adjusting for baseline health status, comorbidities, procedural complications (residual mitral regurgitation, bleeding) and annual volume of cases per site (fully adjusted MOR 1.58, 95% CI 1.46-1.69). Conclusions: We identified substantial variations in the health status benefits of TMVr across institutions. However, we were unable to identify the causes of this variability, including patient selection (baseline KCCQ-OS and comorbidities), procedural complications, and site volume. Further work is needed to better define how to support more consistent benefits of this novel therapy across institutions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document