Mitral valve edge-to-edge repair versus indirect mitral valve annuloplasty in atrial functional mitral regurgitation.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare indirect mitral annuloplasty using the Carillon Mitral Contour System and edge-to-edge repair via MitraClip in atrial functional mitral regurgitation (aFMR). BACKGROUND: In patients with left ventricular dilation, both edge-to-edge repair and indirect mitral annuloplasty are effective in reducing mitral regurgitation, while no clinical trial has compared both interventional methods in aFMR. METHODS: In a retrospective single-center analysis, 41 patients with aFMR underwent either edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (MitraClip group, n = 20) or indirect annuloplasty (Carillon group, n = 21). RESULTS: Both treatment groups showed high procedural success (100%) and low complication rates. Both treatment groups showed a comparable reduction of New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification postimplantation, after 3- and 12-months follow-up. Quantitative reduction in echocardiographic FMR parameters was significantly pronounced in the MitraClip group (reduction in vena contracta MitraClip vs. Carillon: postimplantation -74.6 ± 25.8 vs. -29.1 ± 17.8%, 3-months follow-up -65.8 ± 31.2 vs. -33.9 ± 17.5%, 12-months follow-up -50.8 ± 27.9 vs. -23.9 ± 17.0%, p < 0.05). Qualitative mitral valve assessment showed improved FMR class postimplantation, at 3-and 12-months follow-up in both treatment groups. Edge-to-edge repair revealed better results with lower average FMR classification compared to indirect coronary sinus-based annuloplasty. After 12-months left atrial (LA) volume was significantly reduced in the Carillon group, while in the MitraClip group no LA remodeling was found (reduction in LA volume MitraClip vs. Carillon at 12 months: +9.6 ± 25.1% vs. -12.3 ± 12.7%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both indirect mitral valve annuloplasty and edge-to-edge repair are feasible and safe in patients with aFMR, while the reduction in FMR was pronounced in the edge-to-edge repair group.

Safety and Efficacy in Prasugrel- Versus Ticagrelor-Treated Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Prasugrel and ticagrelor are recommended over clopidogrel in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In this registry analysis, we compared efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel P2Y12 inhibition in patients with STEMI. We included 318 patients in this single-center analysis. Twelve-month follow-up was conducted during ambulatory care at our department. Patients were on dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and ticagrelor or prasugrel during the follow-up period. Prescription of prasugrel or ticagrelor, respectively, was according to the preference of the treating physician. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) [death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unplanned reintervention] and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) bleeding (major/minor) were registered during hospitalization and follow-up. TIMI bleeding events were more frequent in ticagrelor-treated patients [17 vs. 5 patients, hazard ratio (HR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-6.6; log-rank P value = 0.01]. Prasugrel-treated patients were significantly younger (ticagrelor 63 ± 12 years vs. prasugrel 57 ± 10; P < 0.0001). Besides that, patients' characteristics were similar in both groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that ticagrelor medication was independently associated with bleeding risk after adjustment for age, percutaneous coronary intervention approach (femoral vs. radial), diabetes mellitus, and kidney function (HR 3.01; 95% CI 1.0-7.4; P = 0.043). In patients treated with ticagrelor, 35 MACCE were detected. There was no difference as compared to prasugrel-treated patients (24 events, HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.79-2.09; log-rank P value = 0.41). TIMI bleeding events were more frequent in ticagrelor-treated patients with STEMI during 12-month follow-up. There were no differences in MACCE between groups in this registry analysis.