Outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement for degenerated bioprostheses, failed annuloplasty rings, and mitral annular calcification
Sung-Han Yoon,Brian K Whisenant,Sabine Bleiziffer,Victoria Delgado,Abhijeet Dhoble,Niklas Schofer,Lena Eschenbach,Eric Bansal,Dale J Murdoch,Marco Ancona,Tobias Schmidt,Ermela Yzeiraj,Flavien Vincent,Hiroki Niikura,Won-Keun Kim,Masahiko Asami,Axel Unbehaun,Sameer Hirji,Buntaro Fujita,Miriam Silaschi,Gilbert H L Tang,Shingo Kuwata,S Chiu Wong,Antonio H Frangieh,Colin M Barker,James E Davies,Alexander Lauten,Florian Deuschl,Luis Nombela-Franco,Rajiv Rampat,Pedro Felipe Gomes Nicz,Jean-Bernard Masson,Harindra C Wijeysundera,Horst Sievert,Daniel J Blackman,Enrique Gutierrez-Ibanes,Daisuke Sugiyama,Tarun Chakravarty,David Hildick-Smith,Fabio Sandoli de Brito,Christoph Jensen,Christian Jung,Richard W Smalling,Martin Arnold,Simon Redwood,Albert Markus Kasel,Francesco Maisano,Hendrik Treede,Stephan M Ensminger,Saibal Kar,Tsuyoshi Kaneko,Thomas Pilgrim,Paul Sorajja,Eric Van Belle,Bernard D Prendergast,Vinayak Bapat,Thomas Modine,Joachim Schofer,Christian Frerker,Joerg Kempfert,Guilherme F Attizzani,Azeem Latib,Ulrich Schaefer,John G Webb,Jeroen J Bax,Raj R Makkar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehy590
IF: 39.3
2018-10-23
European Heart Journal
Abstract: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 (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.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems