Transcatheter versus surgical mitral valve repair in patients with mitral regurgitation.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of transcatheter and surgical mitral valve repair (SMVr) in primary mitral regurgitation (MR) and MR with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used the Nationwide Readmission Database to identify primary MR and MR with HFrEF patients who underwent transcatheter or SMVr from 2016 to 2019. A propensity score with 1:1 matching was applied. The primary outcome was a cumulative event rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, cardiac arrest and mitral valve replacement. Other important secondary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 2187 matched pairs were found in the primary MR cohort and 2178 matched pairs were found in the MR-HFrEF cohort. Transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) had significantly higher medium-term MACE compared with SMVr in both cohorts (primary MR: hazard ratio: 1.73, 95% confidence interval: 1.33-2.26, P ≤ 0.001; MR-HFrEF: hazard ratio: 2.00, 95% confidence interval: 1.58-2.54, P ≤ 0.001). TMVr showed similar in-hospital mortality in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Although TMVr showed better short-term outcomes, it had significantly higher medium-term MACE than SMVr in both cohorts. Thus, shared decision-making should be performed for TMVr after discussing the benefits and risks in patients who can undergo SMVr.

Clinical outcomes of MANTA vs suture-based vascular closure devices after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: An updated meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: A recently published randomized control trial showed different results with suture-based vascular closure device (VCD) than plug-based VCD in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The learning curve for MANTA device is steep, while the learning curve for suture based VCD is shallow as the devices are quite different. In this meta-analysis, we have compared suture-based (ProGlide and Prostar XL) vs plug-based VCDs (MANTA). METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of all published studies (using PubMed/Medline and Cochrane databases) reporting the clinical outcome of plug-based vs suture-based VCDs in transfemoral TAVR patients. RESULTS: We included nine studies with a total of 2865 patients (plug-based n = 1631, suture-based n = 1234). There was no significant difference in primary outcome of all bleeding when using plug-based as opposed to suture-based VCDs (RR 1.14 [0.62-2.06] I2 = 72%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of secondary outcomes between two groups including major life threatening bleeding (RR 1.16 [0.38-3.58] I2 = 65%), major vascular complications (RR 0.84 [0.35-2.00] I2 = 55%), minor vascular complications (RR 1.05 [0.56-1.95] I2 = 42%), pseudo aneurysm (RR 1.84 [0.11-29.98] I2 = 44%), stenosis-dissection (RR 0.98 [0.66-1.47] I2 = 0%), VCD failure (RR 1.71 [0.96-3.04] I2 = 0%), and blood transfusion (RR 1.01 [0.38-2.71], I2 = 61%). CONCLUSION: Large bore arteriotomy closure with plug-based VCD was not superior to suture-based VCDs in this transfemoral TAVR population. There was very frequent use of secondary VCDs in suture-based VCD group which is not practical when using MANTA. Additional high-powered studies are required to determine the safety and efficacy of MANTA device.