BACKGROUND: Percutaneous mitral valve repair is an alternative treatment for high-risk patients with symptomatic mitral regurgitation (MR). Proper patient selection is crucial to ensure that patients will benefit from the procedure while avoiding futile and potentially harmful medical interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the reasons for and outcomes of patients who were declined MitraClip (Abbott Vascular) implantation and compare them with patients who underwent the procedure at our medical center. METHODS: We screened 182 patients for percutaneous mitral valve repair with the MitraClip device. Of these, 84 were referred for MitraClip implantation and 75 underwent the procedure. RESULTS: Procedural success was achieved in 64 patients (85%) and was associated with superior survival at 30 months (73%) compared with implanted patients who did not achieve procedural success (41%; P=.02). Ninety-eight patients were turned down for the procedure due to anatomical incompatibility (72%), lack of indication ("too well") (16%), and clinical incompatibility ("too sick") (12%). Among turned down patients, those who were deemed too well had the highest survival rate (85%) at 30 months, patients with anatomical incompatibility had intermediate survival rates (63%), and patients deemed "too sick" had a dismal survival rate of only 25% (P<.01). In fact, the patients who were too well had outcomes that were equivalent to patients who underwent successful MitraClip implantation. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a number of reasons for not performing MitraClip implantation that impact patient survival. The best outcomes were seen in patients who underwent successful MitraClip implantation and in patients who were deemed too well.
|Number of pages||5|
|Journal||Journal of Invasive Cardiology|
|State||Published - 1 Nov 2020|
- heart failure
- mitral regurgitation
- percutaneous edge-to-edge repair