-
Semin. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. · Jan 2018
Is Surgical or Catheter-based Interventions an Option After an Unsuccessful Mitral Clip?
- Felix Kreidel, Hannes Alessandrini, Peter Wohlmuth, Michael Schmoeckel, and Stephan Geidel.
- Department of Cardiology, Asklepios Klinik St. Georg, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: felix.kreidel@gmx.de.
- Semin. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2018 Jan 1; 30 (2): 152-157.
AbstractThe objective of this study was to assess the results of catheter-based and surgical reinterventions in primary mitral regurgitation after failed MitraClip therapy. We report on 21 consecutive symptomatic patients with primary mitral regurgitation (median age 78 years) who underwent either repeat MitraClip therapy (n = 7) or mitral valve surgery (n = 14) after failure of the index procedure with 1-2 MitraClip implantations. At the time of reinterventions, 193 (interquartile range [IQR]: 32-622) days after the index procedure, patients had recurrent or persistent grade 3 mitral regurgitation. Early mortality at 30 days was 4.8%. Cardiac-related survival at 2 years was 85.4% (4 cardiac and 4 noncardiac deaths). Three of 7 patients with percutaneous reintervention were converted to surgery at 34, 52, and 56 days because repeat MitraClip therapy was ineffective because of pre-existing clip detachment or leaflet tear. Final therapy was biological mitral valve replacement in 14 of 21 patients (66.7%); 4 were treated with percutaneous repeat MitraClip repair (19%), and in 3 patients, surgical repairs were performed (14.3%). At follow-up with a median of 708 days, New York Heart Association class had improved significantly to class 2 (IQR: 1.0-2.5) (P = 0.0004), and the left ventricular end-diastolic diameter had decreased from 56 (IQR: 52-59) mm to 51 (48-58) mm (P = 0.0378), respectively. Recurrence of significant mitral regurgitation was absent in all but 1 patient with unsuccessful repeat MitraClip therapy who was deemed inoperable. Our data show that both repeat MitraClip and also mitral valve surgery are feasible and safe alternatives in patients without an excessively increased perioperative risk. We conclude that whenever leaflet insertion is not compromised, repeat catheter-based repair is a reasonable redo concept; in the remaining cases, surgery should be offered to the patient.Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.