Dataset Information

Percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of severe mitral regurgitation using the MitraClip XTR versus NTR system.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) has shown to improve symptoms and functional capacity in patients with severe mitral valve regurgitation (MR). Novel device developments provide the technology to treat patients with complex anatomies and large coaptation gaps. Nevertheless, the question of superiority of one device remains unanswered. We aimed to compare the MitraClip XTR and MitraClip NTR system in a real world setting.

Hypothesis

TMVR with the MitraClip XTR system is equally effective, but associated with a higher risk of leaflet injury.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed peri-procedural and mid-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of 113 patients treated for severe MR between March 2018 and August 2019 at the University Hospital of Munich.

Results

Postprocedural MR reduction to ≤2+ was comparable in both groups (XTR: 96.1% vs. NTR: 97.6%, p = .38). There was a significant difference in a composite safety endpoint of periprocedural Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) including leaflet injury between groups (XTR 14.6% vs. NTR 1.7%, 95% CI [2.7, 24.6], p = .012). After a median follow-up of 8.5 (4.4, 14.0) months, durable reduction of MR was confirmed (XTR: in 91.9% vs. NTR: 96.8%, p = .31) and clinical and symptomatic improvement was comparable in both groups accordingly.

Conclusion

While efficacy was comparable in both treatment groups, patients treated with the MitraClip XTR systems showed more events of acute leaflet tear and single leaflet device attachment (SLDA). A detailed echocardiographic assessment should be done to identify risk candidates for acute leaflet injury.

SUBMITTER: Doldi PM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8119798 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIschemic mitral regurgitation is associated with a substantial risk of death. Practice guidelines recommend surgery for patients with a severe form of this condition but acknowledge that the supporting evidence for repair or replacement is limited.MethodsWe randomly assigned 251 patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation to undergo either mitral-valve repair or chordal-sparing replacement in order to evaluate efficacy and safety. The primary end point was the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) at 12 months, as assessed with the use of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in which deaths were categorized below the lowest LVESVI rank.ResultsAt 12 months, the mean LVESVI among surviving patients was 54.6±25.0 ml per square meter of body-surface area in the repair group and 60.7±31.5 ml per square meter in the replacement group (mean change from baseline, -6.6 and -6.8 ml per square meter, respectively). The rate of death was 14.3% in the repair group and 17.6% in the replacement group (hazard ratio with repair, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.42 to 1.47; P=0.45 by the log-rank test). There was no significant between-group difference in LVESVI after adjustment for death (z score, 1.33; P=0.18). The rate of moderate or severe recurrence of mitral regurgitation at 12 months was higher in the repair group than in the replacement group (32.6% vs. 2.3%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of a composite of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, in functional status, or in quality of life at 12 months.ConclusionsWe observed no significant difference in left ventricular reverse remodeling or survival at 12 months between patients who underwent mitral-valve repair and those who underwent mitral-valve replacement. Replacement provided a more durable correction of mitral regurgitation, but there was no significant between-group difference in clinical outcomes. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00807040.).