Procedural, Short-Term, and Intermediate-Term Outcomes in Propensity-Matched Patients With Severe Mitral Valve Regurgitation Undergoing Urgent Versus Elective MitraClip Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair.

OBJECTIVE: The study authors sought to compare outcomes in patients with severe mitral valve regurgitation (MR) undergoing urgent, as compared to elective, mitral valve repair employing MitraClip. They hypothesized that, compared to elective cases, MitraClip procedures performed for urgent indications would be associated with increased intraoperative and postoperative complications but have similar long-term outcomes. DESIGN: A retrospective chart review with 3:1 propensity score matching of elective-to-urgent cases. SETTING: A single, large-volume tertiary care academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: All consecutive patients with severe MR who underwent elective or urgent MitraClip procedures between December 15, 2015, and October 26, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: MR repair with MitraClip. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: As expected, patients in the urgent MitraClip group required a higher level of preprocedural care, and there were significant differences in baseline demographic and clinical variables as compared to the elective group. To reduce baseline characteristics heterogeneity, propensity matching was performed for age, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and smoking histories, using the nearest-neighbor matching with a caliper of 0.2 and with replacement. The final study cohort included 89 urgent and 252 matched elective cases, with a suitable alignment between the treatment groups. Propensity-matched urgent MitraClip patients experienced a longer hospital length of stay (p < 0.001), increased intensive care unit admissions (19% v 4%, p < 0.001) and mechanical ventilation (6.7% v 1.6%, p = 0.023), postprocedural atrial fibrillation (11% v 4.4%, p = 0.036), pericardial effusion (10% v 2.4%, p = 0.005), and acute kidney injury (7.9% v 2%, p = 0.016). Furthermore, patients in the urgent cohort incurred significantly higher 30-day cardiovascular mortality (6.7% v 2%, p = 0.039), increased 30-day (16% v 5.6%, p = 0.006), and 1-year (33% v 20%, p = 0.021) readmission rates. However, there were no statistically significant differences in 30-day and 1-year overall and 1-year cardiovascular mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Urgent MitraClip repairs can be performed successfully, when needed, in critically ill patients with severe MR. Despite the procedural success, patients undergoing urgent MitraClip repair remain at high risk for adverse outcomes in the short- and intermediate-term and incur increased cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. Further efforts are required to develop strategies to optimize short and intermediate outcomes in this vulnerable group of patients.

Supraglottic airway versus endotracheal tube for transesophageal echocardiography guided watchman procedures.

Context: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia in adults. For over 90% of non-valvular AF patients, the left atrial appendage is the primary site of thrombus formation. Left atrial appendage occlusion using the FDA-approved Watchman™ device has been shown to have better clinical outcomes with minimal post-procedural complications when compared to warfarin therapy for patients with contraindications to anticoagulation. Traditionally, this procedure requires an endotracheal tube (ETT) to facilitate transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) guidance. However, recently supraglottic airway (SGA) has emerged as a feasible, non-inferior alternative to ETT for procedures requiring TEE. Aims: Compare outcomes between TEE guided Watchman™ procedures performed with a SGA versus ETT. Settings and Design: A single tertiary care academic medical center. Methods and Materials: Retrospective Observational Study comparing SGA and ETT patients. Statistical Analysis Used: 1:4 propensity score matching of SGA and ETT patients. Results: 42 SGA patients were matched with 155 ETT patients. All patients underwent procedure with TEE. SGA patients had shorter operating room time (11 min difference, P = 0.00001) and considerably shorter PACU length of stays (45 min difference, P = 0.024). Statistically significant, but clinically trivial differences were seen in procedure times (P = 0.015) and fluoroscopy times (P = 0.017). Patients in the SGA group received lower fentanyl (P < 0.00001) dosages. No significant differences were observed in postoperative complications, organ-specific morbidity or 30-day mortality. Conclusions: General anesthesia with SGA is likely a safe, feasible alternative to ETT in Watchman™ procedures requiring TEE guidance. Use of SGA was associated with significant reductions in operating room time and PACU length of stay, potentially offering advantages in terms of resource utilization.