Project description:This review outlines the first trial experience with transcatheter therapy for mitral regurgitation (MR), developed from the EVEREST II MitraClip trial in a trial population comprised predominantly of patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR). Subsequent experience with MitraClip and several other devices has been mostly in functional MR patients. At the same time, there has been ongoing experience with MitraClip in DMR, and a variety of other devices have been developed for catheter-based treatment of MR. Annuloplasty devices have been indicated for DMR, and the potential for transcatheter annuloplasty to be used, in conjunction with other catheter techniques, such as chordal replacement, as it is in standard mitral repair, is developing. Transcatheter mitral valve replacement will clearly have some role for MR of both functional and degenerative etiologies, when repair is not feasible or fails. This review will discuss the evidence base and future development of these mitral repair and replacement approaches for DMR.
Project description:Preservation of the subvalvular apparatus has the merits of postoperative outcomes during mitral valve replacement for mitral regurgitation. We performed mitral valve replacement with anterior and posterior leaflet chordal preservation in a 65-year-old woman. On the 2nd postoperative day, routine postoperative trans-thoracic echocardiography showed an unknown aortic subvalvular mobile mass. We report a case of a remnant mitral subvalvular apparatus detected by echocardiography after chordal preserving mitral valve replacement which was confused with postoperative aortic valve vegetation.
Project description:Background Redo mitral valve surgery is required in up to one-third of patients and is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (ViV TMVR) is less invasive and could be considered in those at prohibitive surgical risk. Studies on comparative outcomes of ViV TMVR and redo surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR) remain limited. Our study aimed to investigate the real-world outcomes of the above procedures using the National Inpatient Sample database. Methods and Results We analyzed National Inpatient Sample data using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) from September 2015 to December 2018. A total of 495 and 2250 patients underwent redo ViV TMVR and SMVR, respectively. The patients who underwent ViV TMVR were older (77 versus 68 years, P<0.01). Adjusted mortality was higher in the redo SMVR group compared with the ViV TMVR group (7.6% versus <2.8%, P<0.01). Perioperative complications were higher among patients undergoing redo SMVR including blood transfusions (38% versus 7.6%, P<0.01) and acute kidney injury (36.7% versus 13.9%, P<0.01). Cost of care was higher (USD$57 172 versus USD$52 579, P<0.01), length of stay was longer (10 versus 3 days, P<0.01), and discharge to home was lower (20.3% versus 64.6%, P<0.01) in the SMVR group compared with the ViV TMVR group. Conclusions ViV TMVR is associated with lower mortality, periprocedural morbidity, and resource use compared with patients undergoing redo SMVR. ViV TMVR may be a viable option for some patients with mitral prosthesis dysfunction. Studies evaluating long-term outcomes and durability of ViV TMVR are needed. A patient-centered approach by the heart team, local institutional expertise, and careful preprocedure planning can help decision-making about the choice of intervention for the individual patient.
Project description:After mitral valve replacement with a prosthetic valve, the valve should be competent and there should not be any residual prosthetic valve regurgitation. Transvalvular residual prosthetic valve regurgitation are difficult to diagnose and quantify. we are reporting interesting TEE images as a diagnostic dilemma in a case of transvalvular mitral regurgitation following mitral valve replacement secondary to entrapment of sub-valvular apparatus in a Chitra mechanical heart valve.
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.).