Benutzer: Gast  Login
Titel:

Outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement for degenerated bioprostheses, failed annuloplasty rings, and mitral annular calcification.

Dokumenttyp:
Journal Article
Autor(en):
Yoon, Sung-Han; Whisenant, Brian K; Bleiziffer, Sabine; Delgado, Victoria; Dhoble, Abhijeet; Schofer, Niklas; Eschenbach, Lena; Bansal, Eric; Murdoch, Dale J; Ancona, Marco; Schmidt, Tobias; Yzeiraj, Ermela; Vincent, Flavien; Niikura, Hiroki; Kim, Won-Keun; Asami, Masahiko; Unbehaun, Axel; Hirji, Sameer; Fujita, Buntaro; Silaschi, Miriam; Tang, Gilbert H L; Kuwata, Shingo; Wong, S Chiu; Frangieh, Antonio H; Barker, Colin M; Davies, James E; Lauten, Alexander; Deuschl, Florian; Nombela-Franco, Lu...     »
Abstract:
Aims: We sought to evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) for patients with degenerated bioprostheses [valve-in-valve (ViV)], failed annuloplasty rings [valve-in-ring (ViR)], and severe mitral annular calcification [valve-in-mitral annular calcification (ViMAC)]. Methods and results: From the TMVR multicentre registry, procedural and clinical outcomes of ViV, ViR, and ViMAC were compared according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) criteria. A total of 521 patients with mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 9.0 ± 7.0% underwent TMVR (322 patients with ViV, 141 with ViR, and 58 with ViMAC). Trans-septal access and the Sapien valves were used in 39.5% and 90.0%, respectively. Overall technical success was excellent at 87.1%. However, left ventricular outflow tract obstruction occurred more frequently after ViMAC compared with ViR and ViV (39.7% vs. 5.0% vs. 2.2%; P < 0.001), whereas second valve implantation was more frequent in ViR compared with ViMAC and ViV (12.1% vs. 5.2% vs. 2.5%; P < 0.001). Accordingly, technical success rate was higher after ViV compared with ViR and ViMAC (94.4% vs. 80.9% vs. 62.1%; P < 0.001). Compared with ViMAC and ViV groups, ViR group had more frequent post-procedural mitral regurgitation ≥moderate (18.4% vs. 13.8% vs. 5.6%; P < 0.001) and subsequent paravalvular leak closure (7.8% vs. 0.0% vs. 2.2%; P = 0.006). All-cause mortality was higher after ViMAC compared with ViR and ViV at 30 days (34.5% vs. 9.9% vs. 6.2%; log-rank P < 0.001) and 1 year (62.8% vs. 30.6% vs. 14.0%; log-rank P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, patients with failed annuloplasty rings and severe MAC were at increased risk of mortality after TMVR [ViR vs. ViV, hazard ratio (HR) 1.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27-3.12; P = 0.003; ViMAC vs. ViV, HR 5.29, 95% CI 3.29-8.51; P < 0.001]. Conclusion: The TMVR provided excellent outcomes for patients with degenerated bioprostheses despite high surgical risk. However, ViR and ViMAC were associated with higher rates of adverse events and mid-term mortality compared with ViV.
Zeitschriftentitel:
Eur Heart J
Jahr:
2019
Band / Volume:
40
Heft / Issue:
5
Seitenangaben Beitrag:
441-451
Volltext / DOI:
doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy590
PubMed:
http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30357365
Print-ISSN:
0195-668X
TUM Einrichtung:
Klinik für Herz- und Gefäßchirurgie (Prof. Lange)
 BibTeX