BackgroundRecurrence of mitral regurgitation (MR) after surgical mitral valve repair (SMVR) varies and may require reoperation. Redo mitral valve surgery can be technically challenging and is... Show moreBackgroundRecurrence of mitral regurgitation (MR) after surgical mitral valve repair (SMVR) varies and may require reoperation. Redo mitral valve surgery can be technically challenging and is associated with increased risk of mortality and morbidity. We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of MitraClip as a treatment strategy after failed SMVR and identify procedure modifications to overcome technical challenges.Methods and ResultsThis international multicenter observational retrospective study collected information for all patients from 16 high-volume hospitals who were treated with MitraClip after failed SMVR from October 29, 2009, until August 1, 2017. Data were anonymously collected. Technical and device success were recorded per modified Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria. Overall, 104 consecutive patients were included. Median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.5% and median age was 73 years. At baseline, the majority of patients (82%) were in New York Heart Association class >= III and MR was moderate or higher in 86% of patients. The cause of MR pre-SMVR was degenerative in 50%, functional in 35%, mixed in 8%, and missing/unknown in 8% of patients. The median time between SMVR and MitraClip was 5.3 (1.9-9.7) years. Technical and device success were 90% and 89%, respectively. Additional/modified imaging was applied in 21% of cases. An MR reduction of >= 1 grade was achieved in 94% of patients and residual MR was moderate or less in 90% of patients. In-hospital all-cause mortality was 2%, and 86% of patients were in New York Heart Association class <= II.ConclusionsMitraClip is a safe and less invasive treatment option for patients with recurrent MR after failed SMVR. Additional/modified imaging may help overcome technical challenges during leaflet grasping. Show less
Aims We sought to evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) for patients with degenerated bioprostheses [valve-in-valve (ViV)], failed annuloplasty rings [valve-in-ring... Show moreAims We sought to evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) for patients with degenerated bioprostheses [valve-in-valve (ViV)], failed annuloplasty rings [valve-in-ring (ViR)], and severe mitral annular calcification [valve-in-mitral annular calcification (ViMAC)].Methods and results From the TMVR multicentre registry, procedural and clinical outcomes of ViV, ViR, and ViMAC were compared according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) criteria. A total of 521 patients with mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 9.0 +/- 7.0% underwent TMVR (322 patients with ViV, 141 with ViR, and 58 with ViMAC). Trans-septal access and the Sapien valves were used in 39.5% and 90.0%, respectively. Overall technical success was excellent at 87.1%. However, left ventricular outflow tract obstruction occurred more frequently after ViMAC compared with ViR and ViV (39.7% vs. 5.0% vs. 2.2%; P < 0.001), whereas second valve implantation was more frequent in ViR compared with ViMAC and ViV (12.1% vs. 5.2% vs. 2.5%; P < 0.001). Accordingly, technical success rate was higher after ViV compared with ViR and ViMAC (94.4% vs. 80.9% vs. 62.1%; P < 0.001). Compared with ViMAC and ViV groups, ViR group had more frequent post-procedural mitral regurgitation >= moderate (18.4% vs. 13.8% vs. 5.6%; P < 0.001) and subsequent paravalvular leak closure (7.8% vs. 0.0% vs. 2.2%; P = 0.006). All-cause mortality was higher after ViMAC compared with ViR and ViV at 30 days (34.5% vs. 9.9% vs. 6.2%; log-rank P < 0.001) and 1 year (62.8% vs. 30.6% vs. 14.0%; log-rank P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, patients with failed annuloplasty rings and severe MAC were at increased risk of mortality after TMVR [ViR vs. ViV, hazard ratio (HR) 1.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 - 3.12; P 0.003; ViMAC vs. ViV, HR 5.29, 95% CI 3.29 - 8.51; P < 0.001].Conclusion The TMVR provided excellent outcomes for patients with degenerated bioprostheses despite high surgical risk. However, ViR and ViMAC were associated with higher rates of adverse events and mid-term mortality compared with ViV. Show less
