BACKGROUND Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) has been increasingly used for selected patients with mitral regurgitation (MR), but limited data are available regarding clinical outcomes in... Show moreBACKGROUND Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) has been increasingly used for selected patients with mitral regurgitation (MR), but limited data are available regarding clinical outcomes in patients with varied etiology and mechanism of MR.OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of TEER according to etiology and left ventricular (LV) and left atrial remodeling.METHODS Consecutive patients who underwent TEER between 2007 and 2020 were included in the analysis. Among patients with functional MR (FMR), those with predominant LV remodeling were classified as having ventricular FMR (v-FMR), whereas those without LV remodeling but predominant left atrial remodeling were classified as having atrial FMR (a-FMR). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization at 2 years and was compared among patients with degenerative MR (DMR), a-FMR, and v-FMR.RESULTS A total of 1,044 patients (11% with a-FMR, 48% with v-FMR, and 41% with DMR) with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 8.6 +/- 7.8 underwent TEER. Patients with a-FMR had higher rates of atrial fibrillation and severe tricuspid regurgitation with larger left and right atria, whereas patients with v-FMR had lower LV ejection fractions with larger LV dimensions. Residual MR more than moderate at discharge was not significantly different among the 3 groups (5.2% vs 3.2% vs 2.6%; P = 0.37). Compared with patients with DMR, 2-year event rates of the primary outcome were significantly higher in patients with a-FMR and v-FMR (21.6% vs 31.5% vs 42.3%; log-rank P < 0.001).CONCLUSIONS Despite excellent procedural outcomes, patients with a-FMR and v-FMR had worse clinical outcomes compared with those with DMR. (c) 2022 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Show less
BACKGROUND The impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on progression/regression of extravalvular cardiac damage and its association with subsequent prognosis is unknown.OBJECTIVES The purpose of... Show moreBACKGROUND The impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on progression/regression of extravalvular cardiac damage and its association with subsequent prognosis is unknown.OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to describe the evolution of cardiac damage post-AVR and its association with outcomes.METHODS Patients undergoing transcatheter or surgical AVR from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 and 3 trials were pooled and classified by cardiac damage stage at baseline and 1 year (stage 0, no damage; stage 1, left ventricular damage; stage 2, left atrial or mitral valve damage; stage 3, pulmonary vasculature or tricuspid valve damage; and stage 4, right ventricular damage). Proportional hazards models determined association between change in cardiac damage post-AVR and 2-year outcomes.RESULTS Among 1,974 patients, 121 (6.1%) were stage 0, 287 (14.5%) stage 1, 1,014 (51.4%) stage 2, 412 (20.9%) stage 3, and 140 (7.1%) stage 4 pre-AVR. Two-year mortality was associated with extent of cardiac damage at baseline and 1 year. Compared with baseline, cardiac damage improved inw15%, remained unchanged inw60%, and worsened in w25% of patients at 1 year. The 1-year change in cardiac damage stage was independently associated with mortality (adjusted HR for improvement: 0.49; no change: 1.00; worsening: 1.95; P = 0.023) and composite of death or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR for improvement: 0.60; no change: 1.00; worsening: 2.25; P < 0.001) at 2 years.CONCLUSIONS In patients undergoing AVR, extent of extravalvular cardiac damage at baseline and its change at 1 year have important prognostic implications. These findings suggest that earlier detection of aortic stenosis and intervention before development of irreversible cardiac damage may improve global cardiac function and prognosis. (C) 2022 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Show less
OBJECTIVES This study sought to evaluate the prognostic value of an increased mean mitral valve pressure gradient (MVG) in patients with primary mitral regurgitation (MR) after transcatheter edge... Show moreOBJECTIVES This study sought to evaluate the prognostic value of an increased mean mitral valve pressure gradient (MVG) in patients with primary mitral regurgitation (MR) after transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER).BACKGROUND Conflicting data exist regarding impact of increased mean MVG on outcomes after TEER.METHODS This study included 419 patients with primary MR (mean age 80.6 +/- 10.4 years; 40.6% female) who underwent TEER. Patients were divided into quartiles (Qs) based on discharge echocardiographic mean MVG. Primary outcome was the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and the secondary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and mitral valve reintervention.RESULTS The median number of MitraClips used was 2 per patient. MR reduction <= moderate was achieved in 407 (97.1%) patients. Mean MVG was 1.9 +/- 0.3 mm Hg, 3.0 +/- 0.1 mm Hg, 4.0 +/- 0.1 mm Hg, and 6.0 +/- 1.2 mm Hg in Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4, respectively. There was no significant differences across quartiles in the primary outcome (15.4%, 19.6%, 22.0%, and 21.9% in Q1-Q4, respectively; P = 0.63), all-cause mortality (15.9% vs 18.6% vs 19.4% vs 17.1%, respectively; P = 0.91), and the secondary composite endpoint at 2 years (33.3% vs 29.5% vs 22.0% vs 31.6%, respectively; P = 0.37). After multivariate adjustment for baseline clinical and procedural variables, the mean MVG in Q4 compared with Q1 to Q3 was not independently associated with the primary outcome (HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.82-1.83; P = 0.33), allcause mortality, and the secondary composite endpoint.CONCLUSIONS Increased mean MVG was not independently associated with adverse events after TEER in patients with primary MR. (C) 2022 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Show less
