2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the management of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 14, 2022, to November 22, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 23, 2023, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy remains a common genetic heart disease reported in populations globally. Recommendations from the "2020 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians.

Dose-Blinded Myosin Inhibition in Patients With Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Referred for Septal Reduction Therapy: Outcomes Through 32 Weeks.

BACKGROUND: Septal reduction therapy (SRT) in patients with intractable symptoms from obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM) is associated with variable morbidity and mortality. The VALOR-HCM trial (A Study to Evaluate Mavacamten in Adults with Symptomatic Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Who Are Eligible for Septal Reduction Therapy) examined the effect of mavacamten on the need for SRT through week 32 in oHCM. METHODS: A double-blind randomized placebo-controlled multicenter trial at 19 US sites included patients with oHCM on maximal tolerated medical therapy referred for SRT with left ventricular outflow tract gradient ≥50 mm Hg at rest or provocation (enrollment, July 2020-October 2021). The group initially randomized to mavacamten continued the drug for 32 weeks, and the placebo group crossed over to dose-blinded mavacamten from week 16 to week 32. Dose titrations were based on investigator-blinded echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular outflow tract gradient and left ventricular ejection fraction. The principal end point was the proportion of patients proceeding with SRT or remaining guideline eligible at 32 weeks in both treatment groups. RESULTS: From the 112 randomized patients with oHCM, 108 (mean age, 60.3 years; 50% men; 94% in New York Heart Association class III/IV) qualified for week 32 evaluation (56 in the original mavacamten group and 52 in the placebo cross-over group). After 32 weeks, 6 of 56 patients (10.7%) in the original mavacamten group and 7 of 52 patients (13.5%) in the placebo cross-over group met SRT guideline criteria or elected to undergo SRT. After 32 weeks, a sustained reduction in resting left ventricular outflow tract gradient (-33.0 mm Hg [95% CI, -41.1 to -24.9]) and Valsalva left ventricular outflow tract gradient (-43.0 mm Hg [95% CI, -52.1 to -33.9]) was observed in the original mavacamten group. A similar reduction in resting (-33.7 mm Hg [95% CI, -42.2 to -25.2]) and Valsalva (-52.9 mm Hg [95% CI, -63.2 to -42.6]) gradients was quantified in the cross-over group after 16 weeks of mavacamten. After 32 weeks, improvement by ≥1 New York Heart Association class was observed in 48 of 53 patients (90.6%) in the original mavacamten group and 35 of 50 patients (70%) after 16 weeks in the cross-over group. CONCLUSIONS: In severely symptomatic patients with oHCM, 32 weeks of mavacamten treatment showed sustained reduction in the proportion proceeding to SRT or remaining guideline eligible, with similar effects observed in patients who crossed over from placebo after 16 weeks. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04349072.

Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Patients with MINOCA.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) is defined as acute myocardial infarction (MI) with angiographically no obstructive coronary artery disease or stenosis ≤ 50%. MINOCA is diagnostically challenging and complex, making it difficult to manage effectively. This condition accounts for 6-8% of all MI and poses an increased risk of morbidity and mortality after diagnosis. Prompt recognition and targeted management are essential to improve outcomes and our understanding of this condition, but this process is not yet standardized. This article offers a comprehensive review of MINOCA, delving deep into its unique clinical profile, invasive and noninvasive diagnostic strategies for evaluating MINOCA in light of the lack of widespread availability for comprehensive testing, and current evidence surrounding targeted therapies for patients with MINOCA. RECENT FINDINGS: MINOCA is not uncommon and requires comprehensive assessment using various imaging modalities to evaluate it further. MINOCA is a heterogenous working diagnosis that requires thoughtful approach to diagnose the underlying disease responsible for MINOCA further.

Outcomes of rotational atherectomy followed by cutting balloon versus plain balloon before drug-eluting stent implantation for calcified coronary lesions: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare outcomes of rotational atherectomy and cutting balloon (RACB) versus rotational atherectomy and plain balloon (RAPB) before drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in calcified coronary lesions. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies comparing RACB with RAPB were identified through a systematic search of published literature across multiple databases. Random effect meta-analysis was performed to compare the outcome between the two groups. RESULTS: Four studies were included in the meta-analysis (three observational and one RCT) involving a total of 315 patients. 166 patients had RACB, and 149 patients had RAPB before DES placement with a median follow-up of 11.5 months. Compared with patients who had RAPB there was no difference in MACE (composite of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) (odds ratio [OR]: 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25-2.18], slow flow/no reflow (OR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.23-2.16), all-cause mortality (OR: 2.02; 95% CI: 0.28-14.60), and device success rate (OR: 1.79; 95% CI: 0.28-11.18) in the RACB approach. There was a benefit towards less target lesion revascularization in the RACB group; however, this outcome was reported in two studies (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.08-0.99). On meta-regression there was no association between age, sex, diabetes, or lesion location with MACE and all-cause mortality. The studies were homogenous across all outcomes. CONCLUSION: RACB, as compared with RAPB, had a similar risk of MACE, all-cause mortality, device success, and complication, but a lower risk of target lesion revascularization.

Cardiac arrest in spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage and associated outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to analyze a large, publicly available, nationwide hospital database to further elucidate the impact of cardiopulmonary arrest (CA) in association with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) on short-term outcomes of mortality and discharge disposition. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted by analyzing de-identified data from the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS). The publicly available NIS database represents a 20% stratified sample of all discharges and is powered to estimate 95% of all inpatient care delivered across hospitals in the US. A total of 170,869 patients were identified as having been hospitalized due to nontraumatic SAH from 2008 to 2014. RESULTS: A total of 5415 patients (3.2%) were hospitalized with an admission diagnosis of CA in association with SAH. Independent risk factors for CA included a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score, hospitalization in a small or nonteaching hospital, and a Medicaid or self-pay payor status. Compared with patients with SAH and not CA, patients with CA-SAH had a higher mean NIS Subarachnoid Severity Score (SSS) ± SD (1.67 ± 0.03 vs 1.13 ± 0.01, p < 0.0001) and a vastly higher mortality rate (82.1% vs 18.4%, p < 0.0001). In a multivariable model, age, NIS-SSS, and CA all remained significant independent predictors of mortality. Approximately 18% of patients with CA-SAH survived and were discharged to a rehabilitation facility or home with health services, outcomes that were most predicted by chronic disease processes and large teaching hospital status. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest study of its kind, CA at onset was found to complicate roughly 3% of spontaneous SAH cases and was associated with extremely high mortality. Despite this, survival can still be expected in approximately 18% of patients.

Study design and rationale of VALOR-HCM: evaluation of mavacamten in adults with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy who are eligible for septal reduction therapy.

BACKGROUND: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a primary myocardial disorder which frequently leads to symptoms such as dyspnea and exercise intolerance, often due to severe dynamic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO). Current guideline-recommended pharmacotherapies have variable therapeutic responses to relieve LVOTO. In recent phases 2 and 3, clinical trials for symptomatic obstructive HCM (oHCM), mavacamten, a small molecule inhibitor of ß-cardiac myosin has been shown to improve symptoms, exercise capacity, health status, reduce LVOTO, along with having a beneficial impact on cardiac structure and function. METHODS: VALOR-HCM is designed as a multicenter (approximately 20 centers in United States) phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study. The study population consists of approximately 100 patients (≥18 years old) with symptomatic oHCM who meet 2011 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and/or 2014 European Society of Cardiology HCM-guideline criteria and are eligible and willing to undergo septal reduction therapy (SRT). The study duration will be up to 138 weeks, including an initial 2-week screening period, followed by16 weeks of placebo-controlled treatment, 16 weeks of active blinded treatment, 96 weeks of long-term extension, and an 8-week posttreatment follow-up visit. The primary endpoint will be a composite of the decision to proceed with SRT prior to or at Week 16 or remain guideline eligible for SRT at Week 16. Secondary efficacy endpoints will include change (from baseline to Week 16 in the mavacamten group vs placebo) in postexercise LVOT gradient, New York Heart Association class, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score, NT-proBNP, and cardiac troponin. Exploratory endpoints aim to characterize the effect of mavacamten on multiple aspects of oHCM pathophysiology. CONCLUSIONS: In severely symptomatic drug-refractory oHCM patients meeting guideline criteria of eligibility for SRT, VALOR-HCM will primarily study if a 16-week course of mavacamten reduces or obviates the need for SRT using clinically driven endpoints.

Readmission following urgent transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus urgent balloon aortic valvuloplasty in patients with decompensated heart failure or cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Urgent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a feasible option for aortic stenosis (AS) patients with decompensated heart failure (HF) and cardiogenic shock (CS) as compared to the more traditional urgent balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV). OBJECTIVES: We conducted a retrospective analysis to compare risk and cause of readmission in these two high-risk groups. METHODS: Nationwide Readmission Database (NRD) 2011-2014 was retrospectively analyzed to identify patients with AS having either urgent TAVI or urgent BAV using appropriate ICD-9 codes. Propensity scores were used to match patients with urgent TAVI as compared to patients with urgent BAV. Statistical analysis was performed using the Stata 15.1 software. RESULTS: We identified a weighted sample of 6,670 patients with urgent BAV and 6,964 patients with urgent TAVI. The all-cause 30- and 90-day readmission was lower in the urgent TAVI group compared to urgent BAV (15.4 vs. 22.5%, (aHR): 0.92 [0.90-0.95] p < .001). 30-day readmission due to CV cause and HF was also lower in the urgent TAVI group (aHR, 0.93: p < .001 and aHR, 0.98: p = .040, respectively). The 30-day gastrointestinal (GI) bleed readmission rate was three times higher in urgent TAVI group (aHR, 3.00:95% CI (1.23-7.33), p = .016), but was not statistically significant at 90-days. Cardiac causes of readmission were the predominant cause of readmission in both groups, but more pronounced in urgent BAV group (60.3 vs. 40.5%, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Urgent TAVI appears beneficial in patients with AS and decompensated HF or CS driven by roughly 10 and 25% reductions in overall readmissions at 30 and 90 days, and marked reductions in reintervention, although offset partially by higher risk of readmission due to GI bleeding at 30 days.

SCAI expert consensus update on best practices in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: This statement was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) in April 2021.

The current document commissioned by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) and endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and Heart Rhythm Society represents a comprehensive update to the 2012 and 2016 consensus documents on patient-centered best practices in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Comprising updates to staffing and credentialing, as well as evidence-based updates to the pre-, intra-, and post-procedural logistics, clinical standards and patient flow, the document also includes an expanded section on CCL governance, administration, and approach to quality metrics. This update also acknowledges the collaboration with various specialties, including discussion of the heart team approach to management, and working with electrophysiology colleagues in particular. It is hoped that this document will be utilized by hospitals, health systems, as well as regulatory bodies involved in assuring and maintaining quality, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of patient throughput in this high volume area.

Hot topics in interventional cardiology: Proceedings from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) 2021 think tank.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Think Tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community annually for high-level field-wide discussions. The 2021 Think Tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease. Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co-moderated by a member of SCAI's Emerging Leader Mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialog from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI, the industry community and external stakeholders in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.

Admission Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention shock stage stratifies post-discharge mortality risk in cardiac intensive care unit patients.

BACKGROUND: The five-stage Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) cardiogenic shock classification scheme can stratify hospital mortality risk in patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). We sought to evaluate the SCAI shock classification for prediction of post-discharge mortality in CICU survivors. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed hospital survivors admitted to a single CICU between 2007 and 2015. SCAI CS stages A through E were classified using CICU admission data using a previously published algorithm. All-cause post-discharge mortality was compared across SCAI stages using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Among 9096 unique hospital survivors, 43.2% had acute coronary syndrome (ACS), 44.6% had heart failure (HF), and 8.7% had cardiac arrest (CA) on admission. The proportion of patients in each SCAI shock stage was: A, 49.1%; B, 30.6%; C, 15.2; D/E 5.2%. Kaplan-Meier survival at 5 years in each SCAI shock stage was: A, 88.2%; B, 81.6%; C, 76.7%; D/E, 71.7% (P < .001 by log-rank). Each higher SCAI shock stage was associated with increased adjusted post-discharge mortality compared to SCAI shock stage A (all P < .001); results were consistent among patients with ACS or HF. Late hemodynamic deterioration after 24 hours, but not an admission diagnosis of CA, was associated with higher post-discharge mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The SCAI shock classification assessed at the time of CICU admission was predictive of post-discharge mortality risk among hospital survivors, although an admission diagnosis of CA was not. The SCAI shock classification can be used for post-discharge mortality risk stratification.

Cardiac implantable electronic device placement following alcohol septal ablation for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are sometimes required after alcohol septal ablation (ASA) for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The primary objectives of this study were to characterize the incidence, timing, and predictors of CIED placement after ASA for HCM. METHODS: Patients were identified from the 2010-2015 Nationwide Readmissions Databases. Incidence, timing and independent predictors of CIED placement, as well as 30-day readmission rates were examined. RESULTS: There were 1296 patients (national estimate = 2864) with HCM who underwent ASA. CIED were implanted in 322 (25% overall; 14% permanent pacemaker, 11% implantable cardioverter defibrillator) during the index hospitalization. Of these, 21%, 23%, 21%, and 18% occurred on postprocedure day 0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Only 17 (1.3%) patients underwent CIED implantation between discharge and 30-day follow up. Independent predictors of index hospitalization CIED implantation included older age, diabetes, heart failure, nonelective index hospital admission and hospitalization at a privately owned hospital. Nonelective 30-day readmission rates among those who did and did not undergo CIED placement during their index hospitalization, were 6.8% and 7.9%, respectively (p = .53); median time to readmission was also similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: One in four HCM patients undergoing ASA underwent CIED implantation during their index hospitalization; nearly 2/3rd during the first 48 h postprocedure. Private hospital ownership independently predicted CIED placement. More data are needed to better understand the unexpectedly high rates of CIED placement, earlier than anticipated timing of implantation and differential rates by hospital ownership.

SCAI shock classification in acute myocardial infarction: Insights from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: We applied the cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) shock staging system to patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) who were enrolled in the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI). BACKGROUND: The SCAI shock staging system provides a framework for evaluation of patients with CS based on clinical and hemodynamic parameters, but has not been validated in patients with AMI-CS managed with a contemporary treatment algorithm that incorporates early use of Impella. METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled in NCSI were identified, all of whom were managed with invasive hemodynamic guidance and supported with Impella. Patients were retrospectively categorized into appropriate SCAI shock stages, and outcomes were assessed accordingly. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients were included in the analysis; 182 patients (61%) presented in Stage C shock, 25 (8%) in Stage D, and 93 (31%) in Stage E. Survival to hospital discharge was 76, 76, and 58%, respectively (p = .006). Survival was <20% among patients in Stage E at 24 hr, regardless of baseline stage. There was near perfect agreement in shock staging between two independent clinicians at baseline (kappa = 0.975, 95% CI, 0.95-1.00, p < .001) and at 24 hr (kappa = 0.985, 95% CI, 0.77-1.00, p < .001). CONCLUSION: In patients with AMI-CS enrolled in NCSI, SCAI Shock classification was reproducible, and predicted survival when applied at presentation and at 24 hr.

Considerations for cardiac catheterization laboratory procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic perspectives from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Emerging Leader Mentorship (SCAI ELM) Members and Graduates.

The novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is highly infectious, carries significant morbidity and mortality, and has rapidly resulted in strained health care system and hospital resources. In addition to patient-related care concerns in infected individuals, focus must also relate to diminishing community spread, protection of staff, case selection, and concentration of resources. The current document based on available data and consensus opinion addresses appropriate catheterization laboratory preparedness for treating these patients, including procedure-room readiness to minimize external contamination, safe donning and doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) to eliminate risk to staff, and staffing algorithms to minimize exposure and maximize team availability. Case selection and management of both emergent and urgent procedures are discussed in detail, including procedures that may be safely deferred or performed bedside.

Hot topics in interventional cardiology: Proceedings from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions 2020 think tank.

The society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) think tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community for high-level field-wide discussions. The 2020 think tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease (CHD). Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co-moderated by a member of SCAI's emerging leader mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialogue from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI and the industry community in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.

How to assess the severity of heart failure?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Mortality rates for acute decompensated heart failure and cardiogenic shock remain unacceptably high despite advances in medical therapy and mechanical circulatory support. Systems designed to quickly and accurately identify and risk stratify these patients are needed in order to improve survival. RECENT FINDINGS: The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions developed an expert consensus statement aimed at early identification and assessment of patients with advanced heart failure and cardiogenic shock. Recent studies have validated this novel classification system within several large patient cohorts. SUMMARY: Assessing the severity of heart failure is a critical step in enabling the targeting of appropriate therapies to the appropriate patients. A novel classification system allows for accurate and reproducible identification and risk stratification.

SCAI 2018 Think Tank Proceedings: "What skillsets are required of vascular interventional cardiologists in evaluating and managing critical limb ischemia (CLI)? What role should SCAI play in supporting interventional cardiologists in their CLI practices, individually and collectively?"

The aim of this article is to discuss the poor outcomes associated with critical limb ischemia (CLI) and the required knowledge needed for optimal care. There is an opportunity for the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) to assist interventional cardiologists in enhancing CLI care through creation of training standards and development of educational content.

SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019.

BACKGROUND: The outcome of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction has not appreciably changed in the last 30 years despite the development of various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support options. It is clear that there are varying degrees of cardiogenic shock but there is no robust classification scheme to categorize this disease state. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of experts convened by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions was assembled to derive a proposed classification schema for cardiogenic shock. Representatives from cardiology (interventional, advanced heart failure, noninvasive), emergency medicine, critical care, and cardiac nursing all collaborated to develop the proposed schema. RESULTS: A system describing stages of cardiogenic shock from A to E was developed. Stage A is "at risk" for cardiogenic shock, stage B is "beginning" shock, stage C is "classic" cardiogenic shock, stage D is "deteriorating", and E is "extremis". The difference between stages B and C is the presence of hypoperfusion which is present in stages C and higher. Stage D implies that the initial set of interventions chosen have not restored stability and adequate perfusion despite at least 30 minutes of observation and stage E is the patient in extremis, highly unstable, often with cardiovascular collapse. CONCLUSION: This proposed classification system is simple, clinically applicable across the care spectrum from pre-hospital providers to intensive care staff but will require future validation studies to assess its utility and potential prognostic implications.

Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair versus Optimal Medical Therapy in Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) with optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with heart failure (HF) and severe functional mitral regurgitation (FMR). BACKGROUND: Many patients with HF and FMR are not suitable for surgical valve replacement and remain symptomatic despite maximal OMT. PMVR has recently emerged as an alternative solution. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis to address this question. Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Scopus were searched for randomized (RCT) and nonrandomized studies comparing PMVR with OMT in patients with HF and FMR. Primary endpoint was all-cause midterm mortality (at 1 and 2 years). Secondary endpoints were 30-day mortality and cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalizations, at maximum follow-up. Studies including mixed cohort of degenerative and functional MR were allowed initially but were excluded in a secondary sensitivity analysis for each of the study's end points. This meta-analysis was performed following the publication of two RCTs (MITRA-FR and COAPT). RESULTS: Eight studies (six observational, two RCTs) comprising 3,009 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In comparison with OMT, PMVR significantly reduced 1-year mortality (RR: 0.70 [0.56, 0.87]; p=0.002; I2=47.6%), 2-year mortality (RR: 0.63 [0.55, 0.73]; p<0.001; I2=0%), and cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.32 [0.23, 0.44]; p<0.001; I2=0%). No significant difference between PMVR+OMT and OMT was noted in HF hospitalization (HR: 0.69 [0.40, 1.20]; p=0.19; I2=85%) and 30-day mortality (RR: 1.13 [0.68, 1.87]; p=0.16; I2=0%). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with OMT, PMVR significantly reduces 1-year mortality, 2-year mortality, and cardiovascular mortality in patients with HF and severe MR.