Long-term outcomes of catheter-based intervention for clinically significant paravalvular leak

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Background: In most centres, clinically significant percutaneous paravalvular leak (PVL) closure following valve replacement surgery is reserved for those considered high-risk for surgery. There is a paucity of data regarding the long-term outcomes of these patients. Aims: Our goals were to assess the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous PVL closure. Methods: A total of 100 consecutive transcatheter PVL closure procedures (74 mitral, 26 aortic) were performed in 95 patients between February 2005 and August 2019 at our hospital. Data collected included procedural success rates, indication-specific outcomes and mortality. Results: Mean follow-up was 5.6±6.1 years, mean age 62.6±15.2 years, and 45.4% were female. The device was successfully implanted in 88 procedures (88.0%). Patients who presented with heart failure (n=57) had a significant improvement in NYHA classification (29.2% Class III/IV versus 100.0%, p<0.001). For patients who presented with haemolytic anaemia (n=38), haemoglobin increased (11.94±1.634 vs 9.72±1.49, p<0.001) and LDH levels were reduced (1, 354.90±1, 225.55 vs 2, 039.40±1, 347.20, p<0.001) following the procedure. Rates of mortality were 3.8% at 90 days, 15.6% after 1 year, and 27.2% after 5 years. Conclusions: For patients who are deemed intermediate- to high-risk for repeat surgery, transcatheter PVL closure shows reasonable clinical success rates, with a significant improvement in symptoms, and a relatively low rate of periprocedural complications.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)736-743
Number of pages8
Issue number9
StatePublished - Oct 2021


  • Degenerative valve
  • Miscellaneous
  • Paravalvular leak
  • Prior cardiovascular surgery
  • Specific closure device/technique


Dive into the research topics of 'Long-term outcomes of catheter-based intervention for clinically significant paravalvular leak'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this