Heart team approach in treatment of mitral regurgitation: patient selection and outcome.

OBJECTIVE: A multidisciplinary heart valve team is recommended for the evaluation of treatment in patients with valvular heart disease, but evidence supporting this concept is lacking. In patients with severe mitral regurgitation, we thought to analyse the patient selection process by the heart team for different treatment options and the outcome after treatment. METHODS: In this single-centre cohort study, all patients treated for mitral regurgitation between July 2013 and September 2018 were included. Primary end points during follow-up were all-cause mortality and a combined end point, consisting of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular rehospitalisation and mitral valve reintervention. RESULTS: 179 patients (44.8%) were treated using Mitraclip, 185 (46.2%) by surgical repair and 36 (9.0%) by surgical replacement. The mortality risk according to EuroScore II differed significantly between treatment groups (6.6%±5.6%, 1.7%±1.5% and 3.6%±2.7% for Mitraclip, surgical repair and replacement, respectively, p<0.001). In-hospital mortality for the 3 groups were 3.4%, 1.6% and 8.3%, respectively (p=0.091). Overall, surgical repair patients had higher 4-year survival (HR 0.40 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.63), p<0.001) and fewer combined end points (HR 0.51 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.80), p<0.001) compared with surgical replacement and Mitraclip patients. However, patients undergoing Mitraclip for isolated, primary mitral regurgitation achieved very good long-term survival. CONCLUSION: The multidisciplinary heart team assigned only low-risk patients with favourable anatomy to surgical repair, while high-risk patients underwent Mitraclip or surgical replacement. This strategy was associated with lower than expected in-hospital mortality for Mitraclip patients and high 4-year survival rates for patients undergoing surgical or percutaneous repair of isolated primary mitral regurgitation.

Effective orifice area and hemodynamic performance of the transcatheter Edwards Sapien 3 prosthesis: short-term and 1-year follow-up.

Aims: The Edwards Sapien 3 heart valve prosthesis (S3) is commonly used for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and is available in three sizes. To date no data has been published on the effective orifice area (EOA) and the hemodynamic performance of the three different S3 sizes. The aim of this study was to measure the size-specific EOA and hemodynamic performance of the S3 in short-term and 1-year follow-up. Methods and results: One hundred and thirteen consecutive patients treated by TAVI with a S3 prosthesis at the Heart Clinic Zurich between May 2014 and July 2015 were included. Clinical data were extracted from the Swiss TAVI registry. The EOA was calculated using Doppler echocardiography (peri-interventionally and at discharge) and by 3D-biplane transoesophageal echocardiography (peri-interventionally). Mean transvalvular gradients (dPmean) were additionally calculated with Doppler echocardiography at 30 days and 1 year. Results were analysed separately for the 23 mm (n = 42; 37%), 26 mm (n = 46; 41%), and 29 mm (n = 25; 22%) prostheses. At discharge, the EOAs were 1.6 ± 0.2 cm2 (23 mm S3), 2.0 ± 0.2 cm2 (26 mm S3), and 2.7 ± 0.2 cm2 (29 mm S3), p < 0.001. The dPmeans at discharge were 10.9 ± 6.0 mmHg (23 mm S3), 10.4 ± 3.5 mmHg (26 mm S3), and 8.9 ± 2.8 mmHg (29 mm S3), p = 0.235, and did not significantly change over time within any of the S3 sizes. Conclusions: Post-TAVI, the EOAs of the three different S3 prosthesis sizes differ significantly, the transvalvular gradients, however, are comparable. Mean transvalvular gradients remain stable over time and document good prosthesis function after 1 year.