INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of severe MR using the MitraClip device is approved for use in the USA for high risk DMR while European guidelines include its use in FMR patients as well.
METHODS: The MitraClip in the Asia-Pacific Registry (MARS) is a multicenter retrospective registry, involving eight sites in five Asia-Pacific countries. Clinical and echocardiographic characteristics, procedural outcomes and 1-month outcomes [death and major adverse events (MAE)] were compared between FMR and DMR patients treated with the MitraClip.
RESULTS: A total of 163 patients were included from 2011 to 2014. The acute procedural success rates for FMR (95.5%, n = 84) and DMR (92%, n = 69) were similar (P = 0.515). 45% of FMR had ≥2 clips inserted compared to 60% of those with DMR (P = 0.064).The 30-day mortality rate for FMR and DMR was similar at 4.5% and 6.7% respectively (P = 0.555). The 30-day MAE rate was 9.2% for FMR and 14.7% for DMR (P = 0.281). Both FMR and DMR patients had significant improvements in the severity of MR and NYHA class after 30 days. There was a significantly greater reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (P = 0.002) and end systolic diameter (P = 0.017) in DMR than in FMR.
CONCLUSIONS: The MitraClip therapy is a safe and efficacious treatment option for both FMR and DMR. Although, there is a significantly greater reduction in LV volumes in DMR, patients in both groups report clinical benefit with improvement in functional class. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
METHODS: LA reservoir strain (LASr), LA conduit strain (LAScd), and LA contractile strain (LASct) were measured using speckle-tracking echocardiography. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, progression to New York Heart Association functional class III or IV, acute coronary syndrome, or syncope. Secondary outcomes 1 and 2 comprised the same end points but excluded acute coronary syndrome and additionally syncope, respectively. The prognostic performance of phasic LA strain cutoffs was evaluated in competing risk analyses, aortic valve replacement being the competing risk.
RESULTS: Among 173 patients (mean age, 69 ± 11 years; mean peak transaortic velocity, 4.0 ± 0.8 m/sec), median LASr, LAScd, and LASct were 27% (interquartile range [IQR], 22%-32%), 12% (IQR, 8%-15%), and 16% (IQR, 13%-18%), respectively. Over a median of 2.7 years (IQR, 1.4-4.6 years), the primary outcome and secondary outcomes 1 and 2 occurred in 66 (38%), 62 (36%), and 59 (34%) patients, respectively. LASr < 20%, LAScd < 6%, and LASct < 12% were identified as optimal cutoffs of the primary outcome. In competing risk analyses, progressing from echocardiographic to echocardiographic-clinical and combined models incorporating N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, LA strain parameters outperformed other key echocardiographic variables and significantly predicted clinical outcomes. LASr < 20% was associated with the primary outcome and secondary outcome 1, LAScd < 6% with all clinical outcomes, and LASct < 12% with secondary outcome 2. LAScd < 6% had the highest specificity (95%) and positive predictive value (82%) for the primary outcome, and competing risk models incorporating LAScd < 6% had the best discriminative value.
CONCLUSIONS: In well-compensated patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions, LA strain was superior to other echocardiographic indices and incremental to N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide for risk stratification. LAScd < 6%, LASr < 20%, and LASct < 12% identified patients at higher risk for adverse outcomes.