Percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair. Current clinical evidence with the MitraClip System.

In the past few years, a myriad of technologies have been developed for percutaneous repair of the mitral valve for patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR) and at high risk for traditional open-heart mitral valve surgery. Among them, MitraClip has emerged as the only clinically safe and effective method for percutaneous mitral valve repair. This device mimics the surgical edge-to-edge mitral valve repair initially described by Dr. Alfieri. In this article, we review the current clinical evidence on the use of the MitraClip--from the randomized control trial EVEREST II to the information derived from expert high-volume centers.

Current state of percutaneous transcatheter mitral valve therapies.

Mitral valve regurgitation (MR) is a frequent condition usually associated with heart failure and reduced survival. Surgery remains the gold standard treatment but a significant number of patients are not optimal candidates due to age, comorbidities or poor left ventricular function. In this subgroup of patients transcatheter mitral interventions have emerged as an alternative to offer improvement of symptoms and increase survival. MitraClip ® is the device with the largest clinical experience and it has been demonstrated to provide clinical benefit in selected patients. However, mitral apparatus is a complex scenario and there are several potential targets for improving mitral regurgitation. The aim of this paper was to review the current trnascatheter technology developed to treat MR.

Percutaneous coronary interventions and bypass surgery in patients with cardiac allograft vasculopathy: a single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) remains a major impediment to long-term survival after heart transplantation (HT). Limited data exist regarding the impact of coronary revascularization in these patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of revascularization procedures in patients with CAV compared with patients who did not undergo revascularization. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 249 patients who underwent HT at our center between June 1998 and December 2009 and who were examined by coronary angiography after HT. We included patients with moderate or severe CAV according to the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) nomenclature to evaluated outcomes after revascularization or diagnostic angiography. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) comprised death, acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularization, admission because of heart failure not due to an acute rejection episode, and cardiac retransplantation. RESULTS: Moderate or severe CAV was detected in 43 patients. Twelve (27.9%) underwent coronary revascularization: eight percutaneous interventions and four bypass surgeries. Indications for revascularization were symptomatic ischemia or noninvasive evidence of ischemia (n = 6, 14.0%) or high-risk asymptomatic CAV (n = 6; 14.0%), namely, lesions located in the left main or proximal anterior descending arteries or multivessel disease with left ventricular dysfunction. The remaining 31 (72.1%), who did not undergo revascularization showed an absence of ischemia during exercise echocardiography (n = 11; 25.6%) or diffuse disease not amenable to revascularization (n = 20; 46.5%). During a mean follow-up of 3.0 ± 2.4 years, MACE occurred in three revascularized patients (25.0%), in one with absence of stress-induced ischemia (9.1%) and in 13 with nonrevascularizable disease (65%; P = .012). CONCLUSIONS: Revascularization procedures were effective in HT patients with evidence of ischemia or high-risk CAV. Patients with absence of stress-induced ischemia have a good prognosis without revascularization. On the other hand, diffuse nonrevascularizable CAV is associated with a poor prognosis.

Prevalence of donor-transmitted coronary artery disease and its influence on heart transplant outcomes.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether donor-transmitted coronary artery disease (DTCAD) affects heart transplant (HT) recipients. METHODS: This retrospective analysis includes records of all patients who underwent a HT at our center over an 8-year period, who survived for at least 1 month, and who were examined by coronary angiography within 2 months post-HT. We distinguished angiographically from keep ultrasonography (IVUS) detected DTCAD. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) comprised death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary revascularization, and admission because of heart failure not due to an acute rejection episode. RESULTS: Among the 171 patients of mean age 53±13 years and including 83% men, 65 (38%) were evaluated by IVUS. Donors were aged 40±14 years (range=14-73). Angiographic DTCAD affected seven patients (4.1%), and IVUS-detected DTCAD, 35 (53.8% of those examined by IVUS). DTCAD donors were older than non-DTCAD donors, by an average of 13 years (P=.001) for angiographic DTCAD and 18 years (P<.0001) for IVUS-detected DTCAD. Two patients underwent percutaneous revascularization upon detection of angiographic DTCAD. The angiographic- and IVUS-detected DTCAD groups did not differ significantly from the corresponding non-DTCAD groups as regards MACE incidence during 54±41 and 38±20 months follow-up, respectively. Cox regression analysis with adjustment for relevant confounders confirmed that IVUS-detected DTCAD was not a predictor of MACE (hazard ratio 1.2, 95% confidence interval 0.2-8.1). CONCLUSIONS: Among HT patients surviving≥1 month, angiographic- and IVUS-detected DTCAD showed prevalences of <10% and >50%, respectively. Neither detection method was associated with a greater long-term incidence of MACE.