Clinical cardiology · 2021
Percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of severe mitral regurgitation using the MitraClip XTR versus NTR system.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Doldi Philipp M, Brinkmann Isabel, Orban Mathias, Stolz Lukas, Orban Martin, Stocker Thomas, Loew Kornelia, Buech Joscha, Nabauer Michael, Illigens Ben, Cerqueira Tiago Lemos, Siepmann Timo, Massberg Steffen, Hausleiter Joerg, Braun Daniel
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) has shown to improve symptoms and functional capacity in patients with severe mitral valve regurgitation (MR). Novel device developments provide the technology to treat patients with complex anatomies and large coaptation gaps. Nevertheless, the question of superiority of one device remains unanswered. We aimed to compare the MitraClip XTR and MitraClip NTR system in a real world setting.
HYPOTHESIS: TMVR with the MitraClip XTR system is equally effective, but associated with a higher risk of leaflet injury.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed peri-procedural and mid-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of 113 patients treated for severe MR between March 2018 and August 2019 at the University Hospital of Munich.
RESULTS: Postprocedural MR reduction to ≤2+ was comparable in both groups (XTR: 96.1% vs. NTR: 97.6%, p = .38). There was a significant difference in a composite safety endpoint of periprocedural Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) including leaflet injury between groups (XTR 14.6% vs. NTR 1.7%, 95% CI [2.7, 24.6], p = .012). After a median follow-up of 8.5 (4.4, 14.0) months, durable reduction of MR was confirmed (XTR: in 91.9% vs. NTR: 96.8%, p = .31) and clinical and symptomatic improvement was comparable in both groups accordingly.
CONCLUSION: While efficacy was comparable in both treatment groups, patients treated with the MitraClip XTR systems showed more events of acute leaflet tear and single leaflet device attachment (SLDA). A detailed echocardiographic assessment should be done to identify risk candidates for acute leaflet injury.
HYPOTHESIS: TMVR with the MitraClip XTR system is equally effective, but associated with a higher risk of leaflet injury.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed peri-procedural and mid-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of 113 patients treated for severe MR between March 2018 and August 2019 at the University Hospital of Munich.
RESULTS: Postprocedural MR reduction to ≤2+ was comparable in both groups (XTR: 96.1% vs. NTR: 97.6%, p = .38). There was a significant difference in a composite safety endpoint of periprocedural Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) including leaflet injury between groups (XTR 14.6% vs. NTR 1.7%, 95% CI [2.7, 24.6], p = .012). After a median follow-up of 8.5 (4.4, 14.0) months, durable reduction of MR was confirmed (XTR: in 91.9% vs. NTR: 96.8%, p = .31) and clinical and symptomatic improvement was comparable in both groups accordingly.
CONCLUSION: While efficacy was comparable in both treatment groups, patients treated with the MitraClip XTR systems showed more events of acute leaflet tear and single leaflet device attachment (SLDA). A detailed echocardiographic assessment should be done to identify risk candidates for acute leaflet injury.