Clinical Outcomes after Mitral Valve Surgery in Failed MitraClip Procedures.

Pingpoh, Clarence; Kreibich, Maximillian; Berger, Tim; Thoma, Martin; Beyersdorf, Friedhelm; Comberg, Thomas; Fagu, Albi; Siepe, Matthias; Czerny, Martin (2023). Clinical Outcomes after Mitral Valve Surgery in Failed MitraClip Procedures. The Thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon, 71(3), pp. 165-170. Thieme 10.1055/s-0042-1742757

Text Clinical_Outcomes_after_Mitral_Valve_Surgery_in_Failed_MitraClip_Procedures.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (369kB) | Request a copy

BACKGROUND

We retrospectively evaluated in-hospital and overall outcome of patients who received mitral valve replacement (MVR) after failed MitraClip procedure.

METHODS

A total of 26 out of 740 patients received MVR after treatment with MitraClip between June 2010 and December 2020. We analyzed in-hospital mortality and overall mortality during the median follow-up period of 72 days after MVR.

RESULTS

The median age in the entire cohort was 77.5 years. In-hospital mortality was 15.4% (n = 4) and the overall mortality during the follow-up period was 27% (n = 7). The median time between the MitraClip procedure and surgery was 34.5 days. The main reasons for surgery were mitral stenosis (23.1%), persistent prolapse of the mitral valve leaflets (42.3%), and persistent tethering of the mitral valve leaflets (34.6%). At the time of surgery all of the patients presented with New York Heart Association 3 and above. The underlying mitral valve pathology was mainly secondary 61.5% (n = 16). Median left ventricular end-diastolic diameter was 60 mm. Preoperative ejection fraction was 40% and above in 73% of the cohort. In addition to the mitral valve procedure, 57.7% of patients received either concomitant tricuspid annuloplasty, aortic valve surgery, ascending aortic replacement, or coronary artery bypass grafting.

CONCLUSION

The need for MVR for failed MitraClip repair is low and the results are acceptable. However, remaining options for reconstruction are usually limited and MVR is often needed. Anticipating success or failure according to the underlying pathology more than according to concomitant risk factors should form the basis in decision making for the treatment modality of first choice.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

1 since deposited on 03 Jan 2024
1 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item