Percutaneous MitraClip Device or Surgical Mitral Valve Repair in Patients With Primary Mitral Regurgitation Who Are Candidates for Surgery: Design and Rationale of the REPAIR MR Trial.

Background The current standard of care for the treatment of patients with primary mitral regurgitation (MR) is surgical mitral valve repair. Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair with the MitraClip device provides a less invasive treatment option for patients with both primary and secondary MR. Worldwide, >150 000 patients have been treated with the MitraClip device. However, in the United States, MitraClip is approved for use only in primary patients with MR who are at high or prohibitive risk for mitral valve surgery. The REPAIR MR (Percutaneous MitraClip Device or Surgical Mitral Valve Repair in Patients With Primary Mitral Regurgitation Who Are Candidates for Surgery) trial is designed to compare early and late outcomes associated with transcatheter edge-to-edge repair with the MitraClip and surgical repair of primary MR in older or moderate surgical risk patients. Methods and Results The REPAIR MR trial is a prospective, randomized, parallel-controlled, open-label multicenter, noninferiority trial for the treatment of severe primary MR (verified by an independent echocardiographic core laboratory). Patients with severe MR and indications for surgery because of symptoms (New York Heart Association class II-IV), or without symptoms with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤60%, pulmonary artery systolic pressure >50 mm Hg, or left ventricular end-systolic diameter ≥40 mm are eligible for the trial provided they meet the moderate surgical risk criteria as follows: (1) ≥75 years of age, or (2) if <75 years of age, then the subject has a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk Of Mortality score of ≥2% for mitral repair (or Society of Thoracic Surgeons replacement score of ≥4%), or the presence of a comorbidity that may introduce a surgery-specific risk. The local surgeon must determine that the mitral valve can be surgically repaired. Additionally, an independent eligibility committee will confirm that the MR can be reduced to mild or less with both the MitraClip and surgical mitral valve repair with a high degree of certainty. A total of 500 eligible subjects will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive the MitraClip device or to undergo surgical mitral valve repair (control group). There are 2 co-primary end points for the trial, both of which will be evaluated at 2 years. Each subject will be followed for 10 years after enrollment. The study has received approval from both the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and enrolled its first subject in July 2020. Conclusions The REPAIR MR trial will determine the safety and effectiveness of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair with the MitraClip in patients with primary MR who are at moderate surgical risk and are candidates for surgical MV repair. The trial will generate contemporary comparative clinical evidence for the MitraClip device and surgical MV repair. Registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04198870; NCT04198870.

Novel Multiphase Assessment for Predicting Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Obstruction Before Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: This study proposes a physiologic assessment of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO) that accommodates changes in systolic flow and accounts for the dynamic neo-left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT). BACKGROUND: Patients considered for transcatheter mitral valve replacement trials often screen-fail because of the perceived risk of LVOTO. In the Intrepid Global Pilot Study, assumed risk of LVOTO was based on computed tomography estimates of the neo-LVOT area computed at end-systole. However, this may overestimate actual risk. METHODS: Retrospective analyses were performed for screen-failed patients for potential LVOTO (n = 33) and treated patients (n = 29) with available dynamic computed tomography. A multiphase assessment of the neo-LVOT area was performed and represented as: 1) multiphase average; and 2) early systolic value. Prospective evaluation was performed in 9 patients approved for enrollment with multiphase and early systole methods that would have previously screen-failed with the end-systolic approach. RESULTS: Of 166 patients screened for possible inclusion; 32 were screen-failed for nonanatomical reasons. Screen failure for assumed LVOTO risk occurred in 37 of 134 (27.6%) patients. Retrospective analysis indicated a potential enrollment increase of 11 of 33 (33.3%) and 18 of 33 (54.5%) patients using multiphase and early systolic assessment methods. In the prospective cohort, there were no clinical observations of LVOTO 30 days post-procedure, despite assumed risk based on end-systolic estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Multiphase, and specifically early systolic, assessment of the neo-LVOT may better determine risk of LVOTO with transcatheter mitral valve replacement compared with end-systolic estimates. This novel approach has the potential to significantly increase patient eligibility, with over one-half of patients previously screen-failed now eligible for treatment.

Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip in Patients with Heart Failure and Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: Design and rationale of the COAPT trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) and symptomatic secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR) have a poor prognosis, with morbidity and mortality directly correlated with MR severity. Correction of isolated SMR with surgery is not well established in this population, and medical management remains the preferred approach in most patients. The Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation (COAPT) trial was designed to determine whether transcatheter mitral valve (MV) repair with the MitraClip device is safe and effective in patients with symptomatic HF and clinically significant SMR. STUDY DESIGN: The COAPT trial is a prospective, randomized, parallel-controlled, open-label multicenter study of the MitraClip device for the treatment of moderate-to-severe (3+) or severe (4+) SMR (as verified by an independent echocardiographic core laboratory) in patients with New York Heart Association class II-IVa HF despite treatment with maximally tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) who have been determined by the site's local heart team as not appropriate for MV surgery. A total of 614 eligible subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to MV repair with the MitraClip plus GDMT versus GDMT alone. The primary effectiveness end point is recurrent HF hospitalizations through 24 months, analyzed when the last subject completes 12-month follow-up, powered to demonstrate superiority of MitraClip therapy. The primary safety end point is a composite of device-related complications at 12 months compared to a performance goal. Follow-up is ongoing, and the principal results are expected in late 2018. CONCLUSIONS: HF patients with clinically significant SMR who continue to be symptomatic despite optimal GDMT have limited treatment options and a poor prognosis. The randomized COAPT trial was designed to determine the safety and effectiveness of transcatheter MV repair with the MitraClip in symptomatic HF patients with moderate-to-severe or severe SMR.

Balloon mitral valvuloplasty in the United States: a 13-year perspective.

BACKGROUND: Incidence and prevalence of mitral stenosis is declining in the US. We performed this study to determine recent trends in utilization, complications, mortality, length of stay, and cost associated with balloon mitral valvuloplasty. METHODS: Utilizing the nationwide inpatient sample database from 1998 to 2010, we identified patients using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification procedure code for "percutaneous valvuloplasty." Patients ≥18 years of age with mitral stenosis were included. Patients with concomitant aortic, tricuspid, or pulmonic stenosis were excluded. Primary outcome included death and procedural complications. RESULTS: A total of 1308 balloon mitral valvuloplasties (weighted n = 6540) were analyzed. There was a 7.5% decrease in utilization of the procedure from 24.6 procedures/10 million population in 1998-2001 to 22.7 procedures/10 million population in 2008-2010 (P for trend = .098). We observed a 15.9% overall procedural complication rate and 1.7% mortality rate. The procedural complication rates have increased in recent years (P = .001), corresponding to increasing age and burden of comorbidities in patients. The mean cost per admission for balloon mitral valvuloplasty has gone up significantly over the 10 years, from $11,668 ± 1046 in 2001 to $23,651 ± 301 in 2010 (P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cross-sectional study of balloon mitral valvuloplasty in the US, we have reported trends of decreasing overall utilization and increasing procedural complication rates and cost over a period of 13 years.

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging myocardial perfusion reserve index assessment in women with microvascular coronary dysfunction and reference controls.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to comparatively assess cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) myocardial perfusion reserve index (MPRI) in women with confirmed microvascular coronary dysfunction (MCD) cases and reference control women. BACKGROUND: Women with signs or symptoms of myocardial ischemia in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently have MCD which carries an adverse prognosis. Diagnosis involves invasive coronary reactivity testing (CRT). Adenosine CMRI is a non-invasive test that may be useful for the detection of MCD. METHODS: Fifty-three women with MCD confirmed by CRT and 12 age- and estrogen-use matched reference controls underwent adenosine CMRI. CMRI was assessed for MPRI, calculated using the ratio of myocardial blood flow at hyperemia/rest for the whole myocardium and separately for the 16 segments as defined by the American Heart Association. Statistical analysis was performed using repeated measures ANOVA models. RESULTS: Compared to reference controls, MCD cases had lower MPRI values globally and in subendocardial and subepicardial regions (1.63±0.39 vs. 1.98±0.38, P=0.007, 1.51±0.35 vs. 1.84±0.34, P=0.0045, 1.68±0.38 vs. 2.04±0.41, P=0.005, respectively). A perfusion gradient across the myocardium with lower MPRI in the subendocardium compared to the subepicardium was observed for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Women with MCD have lower MPRI measured by perfusion CMRI compared to reference controls. CMRI may be a useful diagnostic modality for MCD. Prospective validation of a diagnostic threshold for MPRI in patients with MCD is needed.

Quality of life assessment in the randomized PROTECT AF (Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) trial of patients at risk for stroke with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess quality of life parameters in a subset of patients enrolled in the PROTECT AF (Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) trial. BACKGROUND: The PROTECT AF (Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) trial demonstrated that in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes mellitus, and prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or thromboembolism) score ≥1, a left atrial appendage closure device is noninferior to long-term warfarin for stroke prevention. Given this equivalency, quality of life (QOL) indicators are an important metric for evaluating these 2 different strategies. METHODS: QOL using the Short-Form 12 Health Survey, version 2, measurement tool was obtained at baseline and 12 months in a subset of 547 patients in the PROTECT AF trial (361 device and 186 warfarin patients). The analysis cohort consisted of patients for whom either paired quality of life data were available after 12 months of follow-up or for patients who died. RESULTS: With the device, the total physical score improved in 34.9% and was unchanged in 29.9% versus warfarin in whom 24.7% were improved and 31.7% were unchanged (p = 0.01). Mental health improvement occurred in 33.0% of the device group versus 22.6% in the warfarin group (p = 0.06). There was a significant improvement in QOL in patients randomized to device for total physical score, physical function, and in physical role limitation compared to control. There were significant differences in the change in total physical score among warfarin naive and not-warfarin naive subgroups in the device group compared to control, but larger gains were seen with the warfarin naive subgroup with a 12-month change of 1.3 ± 8.8 versus -3.6 ± 6.7 (p = 0.0004) device compared to warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with nonvalvular AF at risk for stroke treated with left atrial appendage closure have favorable QOL changes at 12 months versus patients treated with warfarin. (WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [WATCHMAN PROTECT]; NCT00129545).