The MitraClip Procedure in Patients With Moderate Resting but Severe Exercise-Induced Mitral Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Optimal timing for percutaneous mitral regurgitation (MR) treatment using MitraClip (Abbott Vascular) remains unclear. We evaluated the outcome after MitraClip in patients with moderate resting MR, progressing to severe exercise- induced MR (MR2+) compared to patients with severe resting MR (MR3). METHODS: We retrospectively investigated 221 patients undergoing MitraClip. All-cause deaths and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations were assessed as the combined primary endpoint. RESULTS: We identified 55 MR2+ and 166 MR3 patients. At baseline, MR3 patients showed higher STS scores (6.7 ± 7.3 vs 4.4 ± 5.5; P<.01), more HF hospitalizations in the 2 years prior to the procedure (51% vs 29%; P<.01), worse left ventricular ejection fraction (44.9 ± 16.5% vs 52.5 ± 14.3%; P<.01), larger left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDd; 57.0 ± 9.3 mm vs 51.7 ± 8.2 mm; P<.001), and larger left atrial volumes (118.3 ± 55.8 mL vs 98.6 ± 35.2 mL; P=.02). Long-term outcome according to the combined endpoint was significantly worse in MR3 patients (P=.01). HF hospitalizations significantly declined in both groups 2 years after MitraClip (P<.001 in MR3 patients, P=.03 in MR2+ patients). Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed LVEDd (hazard ratio, 1.035; 95% confidence interval, 1.005-1.066; P=.02) and previous HF hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 1.813; 95% confidence interval, 1.016-3.234; P=.04) as strong outcome predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic patients with moderate resting and severe exercise-induced MR during handgrip echocardiography may represent an MR cohort at an earlier disease stage with improved treatment response following MitraClip implantation compared to individuals with severe resting MR. Larger left ventricular diameters and preprocedural HF hospitalizations were identified as independent adverse outcome predictors.

Risks and Challenges of Surgery for Aortic Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: Prosthetic valve endocarditis is the most severe form of infective endocarditis. This study assessed the risks and challenges of surgery for aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis. METHODS: In total, 116 consecutive patients (98 males, age 65.2±12.7years), who underwent redo-surgery for active aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis between 2000 and 2014, were reviewed. Cox regression analysis was used to identify factors for aortic root destructions as well as for morbidity and mortality. Median follow-up was 3.8 years (0-13.9 years). RESULTS: Aortic root destructions (42 limited and 29 multiple lesions) were associated with early prosthetic valve endocarditis and delayed diagnosis (≥14 d), but not with mortality. There were 16 (13.8%) early (≤30 d) and 32 (27.6%) late (>30 days) deaths. Survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 72±4.3%, 56±5.4%, and 46±6.4%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of death, reinfection, and reoperation was 19.0% at 30days and 36.2% at 1year. Delayed diagnosis, concomitant procedures, and EuroSCORE II >20% were predictors for early mortality and need for mechanical circulatory support, age >70years, and critical preoperative state were predictors for late mortality. In their absence, survival at 10 years was 70±8.4%. Reinfections and reoperations occurred more frequently if ≥1 risk factor for endocarditis and aortic root destructions were present. At 10 years, freedom from reinfection and reoperation was 89±4.2% and 91±4.0%. CONCLUSIONS: The risks of death, reinfection, and reoperation are significant within the first year after surgery for aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis. Early diagnosis and aortic root destructions are the most important challenges, but advanced age, critical preoperative state, and the need for mechanical circulatory support determine long-term survival.