Logo Logo
Help
Contact
Switch Language to German
Karam, Nicole; Orban, Mathias; Kalbacher, Daniel; Butter, Christian; Praz, Fabien; Lubos, Edith; Bannehr, Marwin; Kassar, Mohammad; Petrescu, Aniela; Iliadis, Christos; Unterhuber, Matthias; Asselin, Anouk; Thiele, Holger; Pfister, Roman; Windecker, Stephan; Lurz, Philipp; Bardeleben, Stephan von; Hausleiter, Jörg (2021): Impact of effective regurgitant orifice area on outcome of secondary mitral regurgitation transcatheter repair. In: Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, Vol. 110, No. 5: pp. 732-739
[img]
Preview
Creative Commons Attribution 742kB

Abstract

OBJECTIVES To assess the value of effective regurgitant orifice (ERO) in predicting outcome after edge-to-edge transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) for secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR) and identify the optimal cut-off for patients' selection. METHODS Using the EuroSMR (European Registry of Transcatheter Repair for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation) registry, that included patients undergoing edge-to-edge TMVR for SMR between November 2008 and January 2019 in 8 experienced European centres, we assessed the optimal ERO threshold associated with mortality in SMR patients undergoing TMVR, and compared characteristics and outcomes of patients according to baseline ERO. RESULTS Among 1062 patients with severe SMR and ERO quantification by proximal isovelocity surface area method in the registry, ERO was < 0.3~cm2 in 575 patients (54.1%), who were more symptomatic at baseline (NYHA class ≥ III: 91.4% vs. 86.9%, for ERO < vs. ≥ 0.3~cm2; P = 0.004). There was no difference in all-cause mortality at 2-year follow-up according to baseline ERO (28.3% vs. 30.0% for ERO < vs. ≥ 0.3~cm2, P = 0.585). Both patient groups demonstrated significant improvement of at least one NYHA class (61.7% and 73.8%, P = 0.002), resulting in a prevalence of NYHA class ≤ II at 1-year follow-up of 60.0% and 67.4% for ERO < vs. ≥ 0.3~cm2, respectively (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION All-cause mortality at 2~years after TMVR does not differ if baseline ERO is < or ≥ 0.3~cm2, and both groups exhibit relevant clinical improvements. Accordingly, TMVR should not be withheld from patients with ERO < 0.3~cm2 who remain symptomatic despite optimal medical treatment, if TMVR appropriateness was determined by experienced teams in dedicated valve centres.