Percutaneous treatment of mitral regurgitation in patients with impaired ventricular function: Impact of intracardiac electronic devices (from the German Transcatheter Mitral Valve Interventions Registry).

OBJECTIVES

To identify prevalence/impact of previous implantation of cardiac electronic devices (CEDs), such as cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization (CRT), in a group of MitraClip (MC) candidates with LVEF < 30%.

BACKGROUND

MC therapy is nowadays often considered in patients with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF%) and symptomatic severe secondary MR.

METHODS

Data from the German Transcatheter Mitral Valve Interventions (TRAMIs) registry were analyzed. Patients with pre-procedural LVEF <30% were selected and divided according to the presence of CEDs. Pre-procedural, peri-procedural, and 1-year follow-up data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Out of 689 MC patients, 235 had LVEF<30%. Of these, 23% (54/235) had CRT, 36.6% (86/235) ICD, and 40.4% (95/235) had no CEDs. Risk profile was similar (median STS score CRT 6.0 (IQR: 3.0-12.0); ICD 7.0 (IQR: 4.0-12.0); No-CED 6.5 (IQR: 2.0-10.0); p = 0.8). No procedural mortality was observed and hospital mortality was 5.6% in CRT, 2.3% in ICD, and 3.2% in No-CED (p = 0.5). At discharge, severe MV regurgitation was reported in 3.8% of CRT, 3.7% of ICD, and 1.1% of No-CED (p = 0.9). One year estimated survival (CRT 75.7%; ICD 75.8%; No-CED 78%; p = 0.94) and freedom from MACCE (CRT 73.6%; ICD 75.8%; No-CED 74.5%; p = 0.88) were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

A third of patients have been already submitted to CEDs implantation at time of referral for MC therapy and 40% of those with severely depressed LVEF% arrive to MC therapy before ICD/CRT implantation. The presence of CED does not impair acute MC therapy success. Mid-term follow-up outcomes are similar in patients with and without CEDs.