Skip to main content
NCBI home page
International Journal of Cardiology. Heart & Vasculature logoLink to International Journal of Cardiology. Heart & Vasculature
. 2021 Apr 1;33:100765. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2021.100765

Efficacy and safety of percutaneous mitral balloon valvotomy in patients with mitral stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Anan A Abu Rmilah a,b,⁎,1, Mahmoud A Tahboub a,1, Adham K Alkurashi b, Suhaib A Jaber c, Asil H Yagmour d, Deema Al-Souri e, Bradley R Lewis f, Vuyisile T Nkomo b, Patricia J Erwin g, Guy S Reeder b
PMCID: PMC8050729  PMID: 33889711

Abstract

Aims

Percutaneous mitral balloon valvotomy PMBV is an acceptable alternative to Mitral valve surgery for patients with mitral stenosis. The purpose of this study was to explore the immediate results of PMBV with respect to echocardiographic changes, outcomes, and complications, using a meta-analysis approach.

Methods

MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched (01/2012 to 10/2018) for original research articles regarding the efficacy and safety of PMBV. Two reviewers independently screened references for inclusion and abstracted data including article details and echocardiographic parameters before and 24–72 h after PMBV, follow-up duration, and acute complications. Disagreements were resolved by third adjudicator. Quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale NOS.

Results

44/990 references met the inclusion criteria representing 6537 patients. Our findings suggest that PMBV leads to a significant increase in MVA (MD = 0.81 cm2; 0.76–0.87, p < 0.00001), LVEDP (MD = 1.89 mmHg; 0.52–3.26, p = 0.007), LVEDV EDV (MD = 5.81 ml; 2.65–8.97, p = 0.0003) and decrease in MPG (MD = −7.96 mmHg; −8.73 to −7.20, p < 0.00001), LAP (MD = −10.09 mmHg; −11.06 to −9.12, p < 0.00001), and SPAP (MD = −15.55 mmHg; −17.92 to −13.18, p < 0.00001). On short term basis, the pooled overall incidence estimates of repeat PMBV, mitral valve surgery, post-PMBV severe MR, and post-PMBV stroke, and systemic thromboembolism were 0.5%, 2%, 1.4%, 0.4%, and 0.7%% respectively. On long term basis, the pooled overall incidence estimates of repeat PMBV, mitral valve surgery, post-PMBV severe MR, and post-PMBV stroke, systemic thromboembolism were 5%, 11.5%, 5.5%, 2.7%, and 1.7% respectively

Conclusion

PMBV represents a successful approach for patients with mitral stenosis as evidenced by improvement in echocardiographic parameters and low rate of complications.

Keywords: Mitral stenosis, Percutaneous balloon mitral valvotomy, Percutaneous balloon mitral valvuloplasty, Mitral valve surgery, Echocardiography

Abbreviations: AHA/ACC, American Heart Association (AHA) and American College of Cardiology (ACC); AF, Atrial fibrillation; LAD, Left atrial diameter; LAP, Left atrial pressure; LV EDP, Left ventricle end-diastolic pressure; LV EDV, Left ventricle end-diastolic volume; LV ESP, Left ventricle end-systolic pressure; LV ESV, Left ventricle end-systolic volume; MACCE, Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events; MD, Mean difference; MPG, Mitral pressure gradient; MR, Mitral regurgitation; MS, Mitral stenosis; MVA, Mitral valve area; NOS, New castle Ottawa scale; PMBV, percutaneous mitral balloon valvotomy; SR, sinus rhythm

1. Introduction

Mitral stenosis (MS) is a disabling disease that limits the normal physical abilities of patients and considered as a major reason for hospital admissions [1]. The leading cause of MS globally is rheumatic heart disease RHD which remains common in economically developing countries and continues to be a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Other less common causes of growing importance include mitral annular calcification typically seen in older adults, patients with advanced kidney disease, or survivors of mantle irradiation [3]. MS patients usually present with exertional dyspnea and increased fatigue which are mainly related to the severity of stenosis [2]. Symptomatic severe MS also called stage D is defined as a mitral valve area ≤1.5 cm2 and diastolic pressure half-time ≥150 ms [2], [3]. Rheumatic mitral valve changes are present along with severe left atrial enlargement and pulmonary artery systolic pressure > 30 mmHg [3]. For many years, the prime course of MS management was through open heart surgery. This was the trend until 1984–1985 when Inoue and Lock developed an alternative minimally invasive procedure called percutaneous mitral balloon valvotomy (PMBV) [4]. MS is a mechanical disorder that its mortality is only improved by PMBV or surgery. Medications can treat the symptoms but do not treat the principle cause of the disease [5], [6].

According to the AHA/ACC guideline, PMBV is indicated for patients with severe MS whom valve morphology is pliable and non-calcified with no left atrial thrombus whether they are symptomatic or not [7].

Numerous observational, small case series and prospective trials are available in the literature for analysis of outcomes and complications. The purpose of this study was to examine the immediate results of PMBV with respect to echocardiographic changes, outcomes, and complications, using a meta-analysis approach.

2. Materials and methods

This review was completed in accordance with PRISMA standards for systemic review and meta-analysis quality reporting (http://www.prisma-statement.org/).

2.1. Study eligibility

We included all original controlled trials or observational research studies published between 01/01/2012 and 10/19/2018 pertaining to the efficacy and safety of percutaneous mitral balloon valvotomy, valvuloplasty or commissurotomy in patients older than 18 years with severe mitral stenosis regardless of their gender. We included all studies aimed to analyze the impact of PMBV in MS patients by reporting the mean values with standard deviations of echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters before and after the procedure. Our exclusion criteria included basic science/animal studies, conference abstracts, case reports, non-original research (e.g. editorials, commentaries), and pregnant or pediatric studies, studies involving patients receiving redo PMBV or open mitral valve surgery, and patients with left atrial thrombus, unfavorable mitral valve morphology, and need for cardiac surgery because of severe aortic, tricuspid, or coronary disease

2.2. Search strategy and information sources

A professional librarian (PJE) performed (with subject-matter experts’ input) our thorough search strategy in 01/01/2019 using MEDLINE, and Embase databases. The following keywords were used to perform the literature search, (transcatheter OR percutaneous OR endovascular OR balloon OR cardiac catheterization OR valvuloplasty OR valvotomy OR commissurotomy OR annuloplasty) and (mitral valve OR mitral valve stenosis). See Appendix 1 for full search details.

2.3. Study selection

The selection of studies was independently executed in duplicate by two trained reviewers (AA, JS) and coordinated using Covidence systematic review software (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia). Initially, reviewers screened the retrieved articles by title and abstract for preliminary relevance. Thereafter, a full text screening was performed for all potential relevant studies for final inclusion. Authors were contacted as needed for further information if possible. Studies with incomplete information after author contact were excluded. Any eligibility conflicts were resolved by consensus with a third reviewer (RG). A kappa statistic was calculated to assess the agreement [8]. A PRISMA-style flow diagram was illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA-style flow diagram for a systematic review and meta-analysis of PMBV for severe MS patients.

2.4. Data collection

Two reviewers (AA, JS or AD) working independently and in duplicate abstracted information on study details, baseline patient demographics, echocardiographic parameters before and after PMBV, follow-up duration, and acute complications of PMBV such as severe mitral regurgitation, repeat PMBV, the need of mitral valve surgery, systemic thromboembolism, stroke, atrial fibrillation, cardiac tamponade and mortality

2.5. Quality assessment

Quality of all included studies was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale NOS [9] by two reviewers (AA, JS or AD) working independently. A third reviewer (RG) resolved any disagreements. The checklist form for cohort studies of NOS was considered for our assessment. Studies were then classified into one of three categories, a) good quality 7–8 points b) fair quality 3–6 points and c) poor quality 0–2 points.

2.6. Synthesis of results and statistical analysis

We designed two standardized spread sheet tables for data extraction, one for baseline patient characteristics and one for echocardiographic parameters and adverse events of PMBV. Continuous variables were represented as means and standard deviations (SD), whereas categorical variables were expressed as number of cases (n) and percentages (%). We quantitatively pooled using a weighted average of the effects from unique studies and analyzed the results via fixed effect or random effect model, based on whether the absence of significant heterogeneity was present using Review Manager statistical software (RevMan 5.3; Copenhagen, Denmark) [10] and Open Meta-Analyst software (Brown University, Rhode Island, USA). If the absence of heterogeneity was significant, the fixed effect model (Mantel-Haenszel test) was performed, but if not, the random effect model (DerSimonian-Laird method) was used. For continuous data, the weighted summary mean difference (MDs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated using the inverse-variance test. For dichotomous data, individual study incidence rate estimates underwent logit transformation to calculate the weighted summary proportion along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) under the random effect model (DerSimonian-Laird method). Statistical significance was defined as p-value of <0.05. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran’s Q test and quantified using the I2 statistic; significant heterogeneity was defined as p-value < 0.1 and I2 > 50%. Publication bias was represented graphically by funnel plots; absence of publication bias was defined when all studies (dots) exist within the funnel in a symmetrical manner.

3. Results

3.1. Study characteristics

We identified 990 references from electronic databases using the previously described strategy. According to the inclusion criteria, 81 citations were retrieved and required further evaluation using the full text version after screening the title and abstract. Thirty seven studies were excluded due to the following reasons, Absence of echocardiographic parameters before and after PMBV in thirty-one studies, insufficient abstract without full text version in 2 studies, pediatric population in one study, non-original research work in 4 studies; 2 reviews and 1 commentary and 1 editorial. Consequently, 44 studies (6537 enrolled patients) were selected for this meta-analysis. The kappa statistic for initial screening for inclusion was 0.73, indicating substantial agreement. The selection process is demonstrated in a flow chart (Fig. 1). The main features and patient demographics of all included studies are mentioned in Table 1.

Table 1.

General characteristics and patient demographics of all included studies.

Study Year Study design Region Recruitment period Group Sample size Baseline characteristics
 Adverse events
Age (yrs) Male HTN DM NYHA ≥ 3 AF MR ≤ grade 2 Wilkins score Previous PMBV Previous Mitral surgery Follow-up duration Mortality Severe MR Repeat PMBV Mitral surgery Thromboembolic events Others
Abdelrahman [31] 2016 Observational study Egypt NA NA 31 35.6 ± 12.8 11 (35%) NA NA NA 9 (29%) 31 (100%) 6.3 ± 0.9 NA NA NA NA 3 (10%) NA NA NA NA
Aslanabadi 2014 [32] 2014 Prospective cohort Iran 02/2010–01/2013 NA 105 45.81 ± 13.37 21 (20%) NA NA 61 (58.1%) 16 (15.24%) 105 (100%) 8.5 ± 1.3 NA NA NA 0 1 (0.9) 0 0 0 0 Tamponade
Aslanabadi 2016 [29] 2016 Cross sectional study Iran 1999–2013 Sinus rhythm 585 45.42 ± 12.08 131 (22.4%) NA NA 198 (33.8%) 0 100% NA NA NA 7.27 ± 3.16 years (a minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 14 years). 7 (1,2%) 0 46 (7.9%) 29 (4.9%) 11 (1.9%) Stroke
18 (2.1%) Peripheral embolic events		 0 Tamponade
Atrial fibrillation 415 54.40 ± 12.39 108 (26%) NA NA 180 (43.4%) 415 (100%) 100% NA NA NA 22 (5.3%) 4 (1%) 77 (18.6%) 54 (13%) 17 (4.1%) Stroke
29 (7%) peripheral embolic events		 1 (0.2%) Tamponade
Babu [33] 2013 Retrospective cohort India 05/2007–12/2008 NA 100 33.51 ± 10.42 28 (28%) NA NA 36 (36%) 12(12%) 100% 7.25 + 0.98 7 (7%) 8 (8%) NA NA 8 (8%) NA NA NA NA
Beig [34] 2015 Prospective cohort India NA NA 25 34.1 ± 7.1 7 (28%) 0 NA All class II–IV 0 All had no or mild MR All with Wilkins’s score<8 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Celik [35] 2012 Case control Turkey NA Case group 40 44 ± 11 10 (25%) 6 (15%) 2 (5%) 7 (17.5%) 8 (20%) All had no or mild MR NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Chmielak [16] 2013 Prospective cohort Poland 09/1988–12/2007 Age > 65 y 132 68.8 ± 3.63 18 (13.6%) NA NA NA 91(68.9%) 132 (100%) NA 2 (1.5%) 34 (25.8%) 6.25 ± 4.33 years 33 (25%) 1 (0.76%) 1 (0.76%) 16 (12.1%) 0 0
Cho [36] 2018 Retrospective cohort Korea 01/1989–08/2005 Post-PMBV Sinus rhythm 50 38 ± 9 5 (10%) NA NA NA 3 (6) 50 (100%) NA NA NA 18 years (range, 10–28 years) NA 0 12 (11%) 10 (9%) 5 (5%) Stroke
1 (1%) Systemic embolization		 5 (5%)
Post-PMBV Atrial fibrillation 57 43 ± 10 18 (32%) NA NA NA 31 (54) 57 (100%) NA NA NA
Demirkan [37] 2012 Case control Turkey NA Case group 30 36.5 ± 8.5 7 (30%) 0 0 NA NA All had no or mild MR NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Deng [38] 2014 Observational study China 10/2010–03/2013 10/2010–03/2013 30 34.5 ± 7.1 10 (33.3%) 0 0 7 (23.4%) 0 All had no or mild MR 4–8 (in 24)
8–10 (in 6)		 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Dreyfus [39] 2014 Retrospective cohort France NA No leaflet or commissural calcification 261 49 ± 15 50(19%) NA NA 196(75%) 61(23%) NA NA 54(21%) NA NA 0 (0%) 26 (10%) NA 7 (3%) 1 (0.2%)
Embolism		 0 (0%) Tamponade
With leaflet calcification but no commissural calcification 141 61 ± 13 33(23%) NA NA 112(79%) 56(40%) NA NA 26(18%) NA NA 0 (0%) 14 (10%) NA 3 (2%) 1 (0.4%) Embolism 1 (0.7%) Tamponade
At least one commissural calcification 62 58 ± 14 21 (33.8%) NA NA 49(79%) 26 (42%) NA NA 12(19%) NA NA 0 (0%) 5 (8%) NA 1 (2%) NA 0 (0%) Tamponade
Esteves 2013 [40] 2013 Prospective cohort Brazil 12/2008–06/2011 NA 30 37.4 ± 10.6 1 (3%) 0 NA NA 0 100% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Esteves 2017 [41] 2017 Prospective cohort Brazil 04/2008–10/2014 NA 142 42.3 ± 12.1 17 (12%) NA NA 59(42%) 26 (18%) 100% NA 20 (14%) NA 30.8 months (range, 1 day to 7.9 years) 4 (2.8%) NA 5 (3.5%) 9 (6.3%) 3 Stroke 7 (4.9%) AF
Guilherme [20] 2018 Prospective cohort Brazil 01/2012–01/ 2015 NA 137 43 ± 12 18 (13%) NA NA 65 (47%) 32 (23%) 100% NA NA NA 27 months (range, 6–53) 2 7 (5%) 5 (3.6%) 6 (4.4%) 1 (0.73%) Stroke 6 (4.4.%) AF
Hasan [42] 2014 Case- Control Egypt NA Cases 65 26 ± 8 21 (32%) NA NA 23 (35%) 0 65(100%) 6.9 ± 1.1 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
İnci [43] 2014 Prospective cohort Turkey NA NA 49 42 ± 11 14 (29%) 0 0 All with class ≥ II, and ≤ IV 0 49 (100%) 8 with (6–10) NA NA 1 year NA NA NA NA NA NA
Jayaram [27] 2017 Retrospective cohort India 11/ 2010–01/ 2013 NA 50 37.48 ± 9.82 19 (38%) NA NA 20 (40%) 50 (100%) 28 (56%) 9.03 ± 1.64 NA 26 (52%) 6 months NA 0 NA NA 0% NA
Jorge [17] 2016 Prospective cohort Portugal 04/1987–10/ 2011 NA 532 50 ± 13 82 (15%) NA NA Class IV in 16 (3%) 242 (46%) NA Wilkins score > 8 in 37 (8%) 54(11%) NA 10 years (interquartile range 4 to
18 years)		 21% Moderate/severe MR in 55 (18%) 17 (12%) 121 (88%) NA NA
Kumar [44] 2014 Case control India NA Cases 25 34.48 ± 9.05 NA NA NA NA 0 All had no or mild MR NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Lee [18] 2017 Prospective cohort South Korea

 09/1989–12/1995 Double balloon 150 40 ± 11 40 (27%) NA NA Class ≥ 2 in 134 (89%) 57 (38%) 100% NA NA NA 20.7 years (maximum, 25.6 years) 34 (22.7%) NA 53 (35.3%) NA NA
Inoue Balloon 152 42 ± 11 37 (24%) NA NA Class ≥ 2 in 139 (91%) 65 (43%) NA NA NA 37 (24.3%) NA 49 (32.2%) NA NA
Lu [45] 2016
 Observational study
 China 05/2008–06/2012 Mild MR 30 46.87 ± 13.39 8 (26.6%) NA NA NA NA All had mild MR NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Moderate MR 10 49.7 ± 8.47 2 (20%) NA NA NA NA All had moderate MR NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Severe MR 16 49.16 ± 11.66 5 (31%) NA NA NA NA All had severe MR NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mahfouz [46] 2017 Prospective Case control Egypt NA Case 45 38 ± 19 46.7% 0 0 2.3 ± 0.7 NA 0 NA NA NA 6 months NA NA NA NA 1 (2.2%) Stroke 5 (11.1%) AF
3 (6.7%) Worsening of NYHA class
Morttada [47] 2014 Observational study Egypt 09/2010–07/ 2011 NA 30 30.10 ± 9.28 5 (16.7%) 0 0 8 (26.7%)
 0. 30 (100%) 7.76 ± 0.31 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Miura [48] 2016 Retrospective cohort Japan 03/2000–03/2009 Sinus rhythm 24 61 ± 9 5 (20.8%) 2 (8.3%) 3 (12.5%) 0 0 All are MR ≤ grade 3/4 NA 4 (16.6%) 1 (4.2%) 73 months [interquartile range 41–94 months] 0 NA 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) Stroke 1 (4%) HF admission
Atrial fibrillation 53 62 ± 9 18 (33.9%) 11 (20.8%) 11 (20.8%) 18 (33.9%) 100% NA 5 (9.4%) 11 (20.8%) 7 (13.2%) NA 4 (8%) 13 (25%) 6 (11%) Stroke 8 (15%) HF admission
Nair [30] 2012 Retrospective cohort India 1997–2003 Sinus rhythm 723 29.4 ± 10.1 NA NA NA 238 (32.9) 0 100% 180 (24.9%) had score > 8 35 (4.8%) 83 (11.5%) 6.1 ± 3 years 4 56 (7.7%) 57 (7.9%) 50 (6.9%) 28 (3.9%) Stroke
3 (0.2%) peripheral embolic events		 1 (0.1%) Tamponade
Atrial fibrillation 95 39.9 ± 9.9 NA NA NA 51 (53.7) 100% 100% 45 (47.4) had score > 8 6 (6.3%) 32 (33.7%) 6.1 ± 3 years 0 16 (16.8%) 3 (3.2%) 14 (14.7%) 11 (11.6%) Stroke
7 (1.4%) Peripheral embolic events		 2 (2.1%) Tamponade
Nunes [49] 2017 Observational study
 NA 2000–2012 NA 427 50.3 ± 16.1 66(16%) NA NA 209 (49%) 146 (34%) 47(11%) NA NA 77 (18%) 31 months (IQR, 7.8–49.2
months)		 49 (11.5%) 23 (5%) 12 (2.8%) 50 (11.7%) 9 (2.1%) Stroke NA
Omaygenḉ [50] 2015 Retrospective cohort Turkey NA NA 18 43.7 ± 2.7 0 NA NA 4 (22.2%) 5 (27.8%) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Ozkan [51] 2016 Observational study Turkey 1994–2010 NA 85 34.8 ± 10 12 (14.2%) NA NA 77 (90.5%) NA 100% 7.89 ± 2 NA NA 108.2 ± 31.4 months 1 (1.2%) 1 (1.17%) 1 (1.17%) 7 (8.23%) NA NA
Pedro [52] 2015 Prospective cohort Brazil, 09/ 2006 – 01/2015 NA 31 40.9 ± 14.2 1 (3.2%) 4 (12.9%) 2 (6.5%) All are NYHA class II or more 3 (9.7%) 100% 8.1 ± 1.2 0 5 (16.1%) 6.8 ± 2.5 years 2 (6.5%) NA 1 (3.2%) 4 (12.9%) NA NA
Rajbhandari [53] 2016 Retrospective cohort India 01/2011–12/2013 NA 20 31.4 ± 9.3 7 (35%) NA NA All are NYHA class II or more 5 (40%) 20 (100%) NA NA NA One Week 0 0 0 0 0 1 (5%) AF
Ranganayakulu [54] 2015 Observational study India 06/2012–12/ 2013. NA 100 37.5 ± 11 19 (19%) 0 NA 41 (41%) NA All had no or mild MR
 NA 0 0 NA NA 4 (4%) NA NA NA 4 AF
Rifaie [55] 2015 Observational study Egypt 08/2013 – 06/2014 NA 39 30.4 ± 7.2 11(28%) NA NA NA NA 39 (100%) 7.3 ± 0.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Roushdy [56] 2015 Case control Egypt 06/2013–06/ 2014 Case 32 31.9 ± 6.3 NA 0 0 All have NYHA class II–III. 0 All had no or mild MR
 All had Wilkins score < 10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Saad [57] 2015 Case control Egypt 08/ 2010–03/2014 Case 45 30.1 ± 8.99 12 (26.7%) 0 0 All
class II or more		 0 All had no or mild MR
 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Safi [58] 2017 Prospective cohort Iran 2014–2015 NA 25 44.36 ± 11.36 21 (84%) 0 NA NA 10 (40%) All had no or mild MR Score of 8 in 17 patients
Score of 7 in 8 patients		 NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA
Sengupta [59] 2014 Case control Netherlands 10/2011–04/ 2012. Case 57 28.1 ± 6.4 16 (28.1%) NA 0 NA 7 (12.2%) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Sowdagar [60] 2017 Case control India 08/2012–12/ 2013 Case 30 36.8 ± 6.7 3 (10%) 0 0 30(100%) 0 All had less than moderate MR NA 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Tefera [61] 2018 Observational study Canada April to May 2014. NA 11 14.3 ± 4.2 3 (27%) NA NA 8(72%) NA 11 (100%) NA NA NA 20 months NA 1 NA 1 NA NA
Tirumala [62] 2018 Prospective cohort India 05/ 2015–12/2016 NA 100 33.2 ± 10.3 29 (29%) 0 0 21 (21%) 0 100 7.9 ± 0.9 NA NA NA 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tomai [19] 2014 Prospective cohort Italy 01/1991–12/2010 NA 527 55.3 ± 11.6 88 (16%) NA NA 386 (73.2) 238 (45.2) 58(11%) had MR ≥ grade 2 NA 38 (7.2) 11.7 ± 4.9 years (range 0.5–20 years) 63 (14.3%) 63 (14.3%) 26 (5.9%) 119 (27%)
 185 (41.9) MACE 21 (4.8%) had NYHA class 2)
Tyczyński [63] 2018 Retrospective cohort Poland 09/ 1988–11/2016 MVA > 1.5 cm2 113 54.0 ± 10.0 12 (10.6%) NA NA 22(19.4% 45 (39.8%) 113 (100%) 6.1 ± 1.4 NA NA NA NA 1.8% NA NA NA NA
MVA ≤ 1.5 cm2 113 53.4 ± 10.2 7 (6.2%) NA NA 92(81.1% 36 (31.8%) 113 (100%) 6.1 ± 1.5 NA NA NA NA 1.8% NA NA NA NA
Vieira [64] 2012 Prospective cohort Brazil 03/ 2009–05/ 2011 NA 28 39 ± 11.5 4(14.4%) NA NA 14 (45.2%) 6 (19%) NA NA 7.6 (0.9%) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Vilvanathan [65] 2016 RCT India NA Amiodarone group 44 38.80 ± 8.426 9 (20.5%) 3 (6.8%) 4 (9.1%) 7 (15.9%) 44 (100%) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Placebo group 45 37.62 ± 9.260 15 (34.1%) 5 (11.1%) 4 (8.9%) 9 (20%) 45 (100%) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Vinayakumar Desabandhu [1] 2016 Prospective cohort India 02/2012–05/ 2013 Moderate MR 17 46.2 ± 10.8 11.8% NA NA 17(100%) 13 (76%) 17 (100%) NA NA NA NA NA 2 (11.76%) 0 0 NA 0 CV death
Mild or no MR 208 41.0 ± 11.6 25% NA NA 208 (100%) 148 (71%) 208 (100%) NA NA NA NA NA 7 (3.3%) 0 3 (1.44%) NA 1 (0.48%) CV death
Open in a new tab

3.2. Quality assessment

Overall, the majority of included studies were judged to be fair quality, with most receiving three or more stars by Newcastle-Ottawa scale. (Supplementary Table)

3.3. Quantitative data synthesis

In the present analysis, we are highlighting the clinical impact of PMBV on the following echocardiographic measurements, a) mitral related variables (mitral valve area MVA, mitral pressure gradient MPG), b) left atrial variables (left atrial diameter LAD, left atrial pressure LAP), c) left ventricular variables (left ventricular end-diastolic volume, LV EDV, left ventricular end-diastolic pressure LV EDP, left ventricular end-systolic volume LV ESV and left ventricular end-systolic volume LV ESP), and d) systolic pulmonary arterial pressure SPAP. These measurements were taken before and within 24–72 h following PMBV and changes over this duration reflect the immediate echocardiographic efficacy of PMBV. Furthermore, the incidence of the main adverse events including severe MR, repeat PMBV, the need of mitral valve surgery, systemic thromboembolism, stroke, atrial fibrillation, cardiac tamponade and mortality occurring on short (<30 days) and long term (>6 months) basis after PMBV was described in this section.

3.3.1. Effect of PMBV on mean mitral valve area (MVA in cm2)

A total of 37 studies provided data for the meta-analysis for MVA change (5572 participants) before and after PMBV. The overall results of random effect model showed that PMBV does lead to a significant increase in MVA levels (MD = 0.81 cm2, 95% CI = 0.76 to 0.87, p = 0 < 0.00001) (Fig. 2). There was heterogeneity across studies for MVA changes (I2 = 97%, p < 0.00001).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

. Meta-analysis of 37 studies reporting MVA changes before and after PMBV in 5572 MS patients.

3.3.2. Effect of PMBV on mean trans-mitral pressure gradient (MPG in mmHg)

Thirty one of included studies representing 5223 patients reported MPG scores before and after PMBV. Overall, meta-analysis results of the random effect model showed a significant reduction in MPG levels compared to pre-PMBV levels as shown in Fig. 3 (MD = -7.96 mmHg, 95% CI = −8.73 to −7.20, p < 0.00001). There was heterogeneity across studies for MPG changes (I2 = 96%, p < 0.00001).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Meta-analysis of 31 studies reporting MPG changes before and after PMBV in 5223 MS patients.

3.3.3. Effect of PMBV on mean systolic pulmonary artery pressure (SPAP in mmHg)

Twenty four studies were included in the meta-analysis to estimate the pooled changes in SPAP after PMBV as compared with before PMBV. A total of 4146 patients were analyzed showing remarkable significant decrease in SPAP levels compared to pre-PMBV levels as illustrated in Fig. 4 (MD = −15.55 mmHg, 95% CI = −17.92 to −13.18, p < 0.00001). There was heterogeneity across studies for MPG changes (I2 = 94%, p < 0.00001).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Meta-analysis of 24 studies reporting SPAP changes before and after PMBV in 4146 MS patients.

3.3.4. Effect of PMBV on mean left atrial diameter (LAD in mm) and pressure (LAP in mmHg)

A total of 16 and 14 studies provided data for the meta-analysis for LAD (991 participants) and LAP (2056 participants) changes respectively. The overall results of random effect model showed that PMBV leads to a significant decline in the levels of LAD (MD = −3.23 mmHg, 95% CI = −3.77 to −2.69, p < 0.00001) and LAP (MD = −10.09 mmHg, 95% CI = −11.06 to −9.12, p < 0.00001) (Supplementary Figs. 1, 2). There was mild heterogeneity across studies for LAD changes (I2 = 23%, p = 0.18), whereas substantial heterogeneity was found across studies for LAP changes (I2 = 87%, p < 0.00001).

3.3.5. Effect of PMBV on mean left ventricle volume (in ml) and pressure (in mmHg)

We included four and five studies for meta-analysis of changes in LV EDV (142 participants) and EDP (475 participants) respectively. PMBV has led to significant increase in LV EDV (MD = 5.81 ml, 95% CI = 2.65–8.97, p = 0.0003), and EDP (MD = 1.89 mmHg, 95% CI = 0.52–3.26, p = 0.007) (Supplementary Figs. 3, 4). There was a strong homogeneity among studies reporting LV EDV changes (I2 = 0%, p = 0.39), whereas heterogeneity was found among studies reporting LV EDP changes (I2 = 93%, p < 0.00001). No significant differences were found in the levels of LV ESV and ESP before and after PMBV (p value for ESV = 0.12, p value for ESP = 0.24).

3.3.6. Main Adverse events following PMBV

The pooled overall incidence estimate of severe MR following PMBV was 1.4% (I2 = 83.88%, p < 0.001) among 3759 patients in 14 studies on short term duration and 5.5% (I2 = 82.93%, p < 0.001) among 1182 in 5 studies on long term duration (Supplementary Fig. 5). The pooled overall incidence estimate of repeat PMBV was 0.5% (I2 = 83.88%, p < 0.001) among 357 patients in 4 studies on short term duration and 5% (I2 = 89.49%, p < 0.001) among 3962 in 13 studies on long term duration (Supplementary Fig. 6). The pooled overall incidence estimate of the need for mitral valve surgery following PMBV was 2% (I2 = 68.28%, p < 0.001) among 3829 patients in 11 studies on short term duration and 11.5% (I2 = 93.52%, p < 0.001) among 3862 in 13 studies on long term duration (Supplementary Fig. 7). The pooled overall incidence estimate of stroke following PMBV was 0.4% (I2 = 0%, p = 0.463) among 1570 patients in 5 studies on short term duration and 2.7% (I2 = 60.02%, p = 0.014) among 2695 in 8 studies on long term duration (Supplementary Fig. 8). The pooled overall incidence estimate of systemic thromboembolism following PMBV was 0.7% (I2 = 71.33%, p = 0.002) among 2759 patients in 7 studies and 1.7% (I2 = 0%, p = 0.497) among 1157 in 3 studies (Supplementary Fig. 9). The pooled overall incidence estimate of atrial fibrillation following PMBV was 4.1% (I2 = 0%, p = 0.849) among 120 patients in 2 studies on short term duration 5.1% (I2 = 0%, p = 0.402) among 324 in 3 studies on long term duration (Supplementary Fig. 10). The pooled overall incidence estimate of cardiac tamponade on short term basis following PMBV was 0.2% (I2 = 0%, p = 0.838) among 3066 patients in 7 studies (Supplementary Fig. 11). The pooled overall incidence estimate of mortality following PMBV was 0.2% (I2 = 0%, p = 0.879) among 2166 patients in 7 studies and 5.9% (I2 = 93.71%, p < 0.001) among 3273 in 12 studies (Supplementary Fig. 12).

3.4. Publication bias

Because publication bias could affect the results of meta-analyses, we attempted to evaluate this potential publication bias by using funnel plots analysis. Visualizing funnel plots for studies evaluating the echocardiographic parameters suggested a symmetric distribution of studies around the effect size (Supplementary Figs. 13–17).

4. Discussion

Percutaneous balloon mitral valvotomy (PMBV) is now deemed as a preferable alternative to open mitral surgery in patients with symptomatic moderate/severe MS with MVA ≤ 1.5 cm2, NYHA functional class II-IV, favorable valve anatomy devoid of commissural calcification, no or mild mitral regurgitation, and no LA thrombus [11], [12]. It is noteworthy that PMBV indications have expanded to involve less suitable conditions including suboptimal valve anatomy, and also as a palliative therapy in elderly patients who are poor surgical candidates [13], [14]. The main additive advantage for offering PMBV to patients suffering from rheumatic mitral stenosis must be its low cost in which the cost of mitral valve replacement surgery is at least twice that of PMBV in the USA. Over the years, PBMV has embraced as a mainstream therapy, especially in developing countries with endemic rheumatic heart disease [31], [32].

Our present study is the first of its kind to review and statistically analyze the studies that assess the changes in the structural and hemodynamic echocardiographic parameters occurring in patients receiving PMBV for severe mitral stenosis. Our findings suggest that successful PMBV leads to a significant increase in MVA, LVEDP, LVEDV and decrease in MPG, LAP, LAD, and SPAP.

With growing experience, a considerable high success and low complication rates in both short and long term follow-ups have been documented in patients undergoing PMBV. The published event-free survival rate at 10 years ranges from 70 to 90% [13], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], however, the need for repeat PMBV or mitral valve surgery, and the development post-PMBV severe MR, stroke, systemic embolism and cardiac tamponade remain major concerns among patients and providers alike despite the significant decrease in the incidence of these events in the past few years. Our analysis of more than 3500 patients has revealed that the pooled overall incidence estimates of repeat PMBV, mitral valve surgery, post-PMBV severe MR, and post-PMBV stroke, and systemic thromboembolism, mortality on short term follow-up (<30 days) were 0.5%, 2%, 1.4%, 0.4%, 0.7% and 0.2% respectively, wherease on long term basis (> 6 months), the pooled overall incidence estimates of the same aformentioned events were 5%, 11.5%, 5.5%, 2.7%, 1.7% and 5.9% respectively

Prediction of long term events including all-cause mortality, mitral valve surgery, repeat PMBV, deterioration in NYHA functional class ≥ 3 and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) has also been described. Multiple determinants have been identified as independent predictors for these long term outcomes. Chmielak et al. 2013 [16] evaluated the safety and efficacy of PMBV for the treatment of MS in patients > 65y and found that higher age and larger LAD before PMBV significantly predict all-cause mortality. Another study published by Guilherme et al. 2019 [20] detected that post-PMV MPG, and lack of functional improvement at 6-month follow-up are independent predictors of aforementioned outcomes. Jorge et al. 2016 [17] prospectively enrolled 532 patients who underwent PMBV from 1987 to 2011 and demonstrated that unfavorable valve anatomy; Wilkins score > 8, post-PMV SPAP, and age appear to significantly anticipate the risk of adverse outcomes following PMBV. Two additional studies consisting of 829 patients identified that AF, total echocardiographic score, immediate post-PMBV MVA < 1.8 cm2 could significantly predict the occurrence of these outcomes on long term basis [18], [19].

Around 40% of all patients with RHD are estimated to have combined MS and MR particularly patients with symptomatic severe MS who have significantly concomitant moderate MR [3], [21]. As the co-existence of moderate MR is considered PMBV contraindication, mitral valve replacement surgery is the routine practice for these patients thus exposing them to the risks of surgical complications, infective endocarditis and anticoagulation [3], [21]. For that reason, Desabandhu et al. 2016 [1] hypothesized that preserving the native valve via PMBV could be a safe and effective alternative measure that provides sustained symptomatic relief. Therefore, they compared the safety and efficacy of PMBV in patients with severe MS and moderate MR (group I, n = 17) with those with less than moderate or no MR (group II, n = 208). Primary safety outcome (defined as composite of cardiovascular death and development of severe MR with or without requirement for mitral valve replacement at 30 days of procedure) showed no significant difference [2 (11.7%) in Group I vs. 8 (3.85%) in Group II, p = 0.36]; but this may be due to small numbers of patients in Group I. A decline in MR after PMBV has been described in few reports [14], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] including Palacios et al. 1989 [24] who described three possible mechanisms that could elucidate that decline, 1) reversible mitral valve “stretching” by PMBV; 2) fibrosis and healing of the end of the commissures, which may mitigate MR due to the excessive splitting of the commissures; and 3) improvement in transient papillary muscle dysfunction caused by balloon trauma at the time of PMBV. However, for most patients, presence of preexisting moderate mitral regurgitation must still be considered a contraindication to PMBV

The probability of AF development is high with an estimate of 40–70% in patients with MS, owing to the electrical heterogeneity, and non-uniform conduction velocities as a result of left atrial dilatation in response to valve obstruction and the inflammatory and fibrotic changes caused by the rheumatic process [27]. AF adversely causes blood stasis in the left atrial appendage, which can precipitate thromboembolic complications such as ischemic stroke [27]. Different success rates of the PMBV in patients with AF and MS have been reported in previous studies. In a study reported by Maatouk et al. 2005 [28], the immediate success rate of the PMBV in 195 AF vs. 195 sinus rhythm SR patients was statistically similar (89.7% vs. 92.3%, respectively). However, patients with AF had a lower 10-year overall survival rate (91.4 versus 99.4%; p = 0.018), event-free-survival rate (60.3 versus 70%; p = 0.02), and freedom from restenosis rate (40 versus 66%; p = 0.048). On the other hand, Alsnabadi et al. 2016 [29] showed that PMBV was successful in 554 (94.7%) of SR patients and 281 (67.7%) of AF patients (P < 0.001). Also, Nair et al. 2012 [30] indicated a higher success rate of PMBV in SR patients (93.6% vs. 84.2%; P = 0.032).

5. Limitations

Our review has some strengths and limitations. Strengths included the comprehensive search strategy executed by professional librarian, and the process of the process of study screening, data extraction and study quality assessment performed by two independent reviewers. There are also some limitations in our study. First, although comprehensive search strategies focused on assessing the safety and efficacy of PMBV as well as its impact on the structural and hemodynamic echocardiographic parameters in patients with severe MS was implemented, this review is subject to publication bias inevitably. Second, most of the included studies are observational reports, which are of suboptimal quality and subject to selection bias. Third, our analysis was based on the data from the studies published between 01/2012–10/2018 and thus excluding many studies published prior to 2012 particularly those reported by Vahanian et al. and Palacios et al. Fourth, most included studies evaluated the acute changes in echocardiographic variables within 24–72 h after the PMBV; therefore, further observational studies are warranted to measure long-term effects of PMBV on these variables. Finally, the heterogeneity between studies analyzing echocardiographic parameters was statistically significant. We believed that the observed heterogeneity in our meta-analysis was mainly attributed to differences in population, study design, follow-up, sample size or co-morbidities

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, this is the first large international meta-analysis of PMBV, and despite some heterogeneity in the data, there is strong support for improvement in echocardiographic variables including mitral valve area, mitral pressure gradient, left ventricular end-diastolic pressure and volume, pulmonary artery pressure over 24–72 h following PMBV, and at an acceptably low rate of complications including severe MR, stroke, systemic thromboembolism, tamponade, and need for additional intervention (repeat PMBV, mitral valve surgery) on the short (<30 days and long term (>6 months) basis. Rheumatic heart disease continues to afflict large numbers of people every year around the world and advancement in measures for treatment and prevention of this condition should remain a continuing goal.

7. Research Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and publication of this article.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2021.100765.

Appendix A. Supplementary material

The following are the Supplementary data to this article:

Supplementary data 1
mmc1.docx (2.1MB, docx)

References

  • 1.Desabandhu V., Peringadan N.G., Krishnan M.N. Safety and efficacy of percutaneous balloon mitral valvotomy in severe mitral stenosis with moderate mitral regurgitation - A prospective study. Indian Heart J. 2016;68(6):783–787. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2016.04.025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rinkevich D., Lessick J., Mutlak D., Markiewicz W., Reisner S.A. Natural history of moderate mitral valve stenosis. Isr Med. Assoc. J. 2003;5(1):15–18. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Nishimura R.A., Otto C.M., Bonow R.O., Carabello B.A., Erwin J.P., 3rd, Guyton R.A. 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease, executive summary, a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;129(23):2440–2492. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Carroll J.D., Feldman T. Percutaneous mitral balloon valvotomy and the new demographics of mitral stenosis. JAMA. 1993;270(14):1731–1736. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Orrange S.E., Kawanishi D.T., Lopez B.M., Curry S.M., Rahimtoola S.H. Actuarial outcome after catheter balloon commissurotomy in patients with mitral stenosis. Circulation. 1997;95(2):382–389. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.95.2.382. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ellis L.B., Singh J.B., Morales D.D., Harken D.E. Fifteen-to twenty-year study of one thousand patients undergoing closed mitral valvuloplasty. Circulation. 1973;48(2):357–364. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.48.2.357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nishimura R.A., Otto C.M., Bonow R.O., Carabello B.A., Erwin J.P., Fleisher L.A. 2017 AHA/ACC focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017;70(2):252–289. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.J. Cohen, A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales educational and psychological measurement (EPM). 20(1) (1960) 37–46.
  • 9.G. Wells O.C.J. SB, J. Robertson, et al., The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analysis. Secondary The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analysis. (2011).
  • 10.Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen, Denmark, The Nordic Cochrane Centre. The Cochrane Collaboration (2014).
  • 11.Fawzy M.E. Percutaneous mitral balloon valvotomy. Catheterization Cardiovascular Interventions, Off. J. Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions. 2007;69(2):313–321. doi: 10.1002/ccd.21008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Inoue K., Owaki T., Nakamura T., Kitamura F., Miyamoto N. Clinical application of transvenous mitral commissurotomy by a new balloon catheter. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 1984;87(3):394–402. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Palacios I.F., Sanchez P.L., Harrell L.C., Weyman A.E., Block P.C. Which patients benefit from percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty? Prevalvuloplasty and postvalvuloplasty variables that predict long-term outcome. Circulation. 2002;105(12):1465–1471. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000012143.27196.f4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Vahanian A., Alfieri O., Andreotti F., Antunes M.J., Barón-Esquivias G., Baumgartner H. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012) Eur. Heart J. 2012;33(19):2451–2496. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bouleti C., Iung B., Himbert D., Brochet E., Messika-Zeitoun D., Détaint D. Reinterventions after percutaneous mitral commissurotomy during long-term follow-up, up to 20 years, the role of repeat percutaneous mitral commissurotomy. Eur. Heart J. 2013;34(25):1923–1930. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht097. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Chmielak Z., Kłopotowski M., Demkow M., Konka M., Hoffman P., Kukuła K. Percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty beyond 65 years of age. Cardiol. J. 2013;20(1):44–51. doi: 10.5603/CJ.2013.0008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jorge E., Pan M., Baptista R., Romero M., Ojeda S., Suárez de Lezo J. Predictors of very late events after percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty in patients with mitral stenosis. Am. J. Cardiol. 2016;117(12):1978–1984. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.03.051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lee S., Kang D.H., Kim D.H., Song J.M., Song J.K., Park S.W. Late outcome of percutaneous mitral commissurotomy, Randomized comparison of Inoue versus double-balloon technique. Am. Heart J. 2017;194:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2017.04.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Tomai F., Gaspardone A., Versaci F., Ghini A.S., Altamura L., De Luca L. Twenty year follow-up after successful percutaneous balloon mitral valvuloplasty in a large contemporary series of patients with mitral stenosis. Int. J. Cardiol. 2014;177(3):881–885. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.10.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Athayde G.R.S., Nascimento B.R., Elmariah S., Lodi-Junqueira L., Soares J.R., Saad G.P. Impact of left atrial compliance improvement on functional status after percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, Off. J. Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions. 2019;93(1):156–163. doi: 10.1002/ccd.27831. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Delahaye F., Delaye J., Ecochard R., Cao D., Genoud J.L., Jegaden O. Influence of associated valvular lesions on long-term prognosis of mitral stenosis. A 20-year follow-up of 202 patients. Eur. Heart J. 1991;12 Suppl B:77–80. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/12.suppl_b.77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Herrmann H.C., Kleaveland J.P., Hill J.A., Cowley M.J., Margolis J.R., Nocero M.A. The M-Heart percutaneous balloon mitral Valvuloplasty Registry, initial results and early follow-up. The M-Heart Group. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1990;15(6):1221–1226. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(10)80004-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hung J.S., Chern M.S., Wu J.J., Fu M., Yeh K.H., Wu Y.C. Short- and long-term results of catheter balloon percutaneous transvenous mitral commissurotomy. Am. J. Cardiol. 1991;67(9):854–862. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(91)90619-v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Palacios I.F., Block P.C., Wilkins G.T., Weyman A.E. Follow-up of patients undergoing percutaneous mitral balloon valvotomy. Analysis of factors determining restenosis. Circulation. 1989;79(3):573–579. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.79.3.573. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Roth R.B., Block P.C., Palacios I.F. Predictors of increased mitral regurgitation after percutaneous mitral balloon valvotomy. Cathet. Cardiovasc. Diagn. 1990;20(1):17–21. doi: 10.1002/ccd.1810200105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sadeghian H., Salarifar M., Rezvanfard M., Nematipour E., Lotfi Tokaldany M., Safir Mardanloo A. Percutaneous transvenous mitral commissurotomy, significance of echocardiographic assessment in prediction of immediate result. Arch Iran Med. 2012;15(10):629–634. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Jayaram A.A., Shukla A.N., Shah S., Nayak V., Prabhu S., Pai U. Sinus rhythm in rheumatic mitral stenosis after balloon mitral valvotomy, is it feasible? J. Clin. Diagnostic Res., JCDR. 2017;11(2) doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/19382.9124. Oc01-oc5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Maatouk F., Betbout F., Ben-Farhat M., Addad F., Gamra H., Ben-Hamda K. Balloon mitral commissurotomy for patients with mitral stenosis in atrial fibrillation, ten-year clinical and echocardiographic actuarial results. J. Heart Valve Dis. 2005;14(6):727–734. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Aslanabadi N., Ghaffari S., Khezerlouy Aghdam N., Ahmadzade M., Kazemi B., Nasiri B. Poor outcome following percutaneous balloon mitral valvotomy in patients with atrial fibrillation. J. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Res. 2016;8(3):126–131. doi: 10.15171/jcvtr.2016.26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Nair K.K., Pillai H.S., Thajudeen A., Krishnamoorthy K.M., Sivasubramonian S., Namboodiri N. Immediate and long-term results following balloon mitral valvotomy in patients with atrial fibrillation. Clin. Cardiol. 2012;35(12):E35–E39. doi: 10.1002/clc.22068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Abdel Rahman M.A., Omar A.M.S., Amin M., Rifaie O. Inflammatory status in patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis, Guilty before and after balloon mitral valvuloplasty. Egypt. Heart J. 2016;68(2):83–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Aslanabadi N., Toufan M., Salehi R., Alizadehasl A., Ghaffari S., Sohrabi B. Mitral regurgitation after percutaneous balloon mitral valvotomy in patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis, a single-center study. J. Tehran Heart Cent. 2014;9(3):109–114. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sarath Babu D., Ranganayakulu K.P., Rajasekhar D., Vanajakshamma V., Pramod Kumar T. Assessment of mitral valve commissural morphology by transoesophageal echocardiography predicts outcome after balloon mitral valvotomy. Indian Heart J. 2013;65(3):269–275. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2013.04.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Beig J.R., Tramboo N.A., Rather H.A., Hafeez I., Ananth V., Lone A.A. Immediate effect of percutaneous transvenous mitral commissurotomy on atrial electromechanical delay and P-wave dispersion in patients with severe mitral stenosis. Indian Heart J. 2015;67(Suppl 2):S46–S54. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2015.10.375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Celik A., Gunebakmaz O., Baran O., Dogdu O., Elcik D., Kobat M.A. An investigation of tenascin-C levels in rheumatic mitral stenosis and their response to percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty. Medical Principles Pract., Int. J. Kuwait University, Health Science Centre. 2013;22(1):29–34. doi: 10.1159/000340061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cho I.J., Kim S.J., Han D., Kim D., Shim C.Y., Hong G.R. Different characteristics, clinical outcomes, and left atrial reverse remodeling in patients with mitral stenosis maintaining sinus rhythm for at least 10 years after successful percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty. Cardiology. 2018;140(1):14–20. doi: 10.1159/000486708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Demirkan B., Guray Y., Guray U., Ege M.R., Kisacik H.L., Sasmaz H. The acute effect of percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty on atrial electromechanical delay and P-wave dispersion in patients with mitral stenosis. Herz. 2013;38(2):210–215. doi: 10.1007/s00059-012-3672-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Deng Y., Guo S.L., Su H.Y., Wang Q., Tan Z., Wu J. Left atrial asynchrony and mechanical function in patients with mitral stenosis before and immediately after percutaneous balloon mitral valvuloplasty, a real time three-dimensional echocardiography study. Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, NY). 2015;32(2):291–301. doi: 10.1111/echo.12645. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Dreyfus J., Cimadevilla C., Nguyen V., Brochet E., Lepage L., Himbert D. Feasibility of percutaneous mitral commissurotomy in patients with commissural mitral valve calcification. Eur. Heart J. 2014;35(24):1617–1623. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Esteves W.A., Lodi-Junqueira L., Neto C.P., Tan T.C., Nascimento B.R., Mehrotra P. The impact of right ventricular stroke work on B-type natriuretic peptide levels in patients with mitral stenosis undergoing percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty. J. Intervent. Cardiol. 2013;26(5):501–508. doi: 10.1111/joic.12050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Esteves W.A.M., Lodi-Junqueira L., Soares J.R., Sant'Anna Athayde G.R., Goebel G.A., Carvalho L.A. Impact of percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty on left ventricular function in patients with mitral stenosis assessed by 3D echocardiography. Int. J. Cardiol. 2017;248:280–285. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.06.078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hasan-Ali H., Mosad E. Changes in platelet, coagulation, and fibrinolytic activities in mitral stenosis after percutaneous mitral valvotomy, role of hemodynamic changes and systemic inflammation. Clin. Appl. Thrombosis/Hemostasis, Off. J. Int. Acad. Clin. Appl. Thrombosis/Hemostasis. 2015;21(4):339–347. doi: 10.1177/1076029614533144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Inci S., Erol M.K., Taş M.H., Bakırcı E.M., Hamur H., Karakelleoğlu S. Early- and mid-term effects of percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty on left atrial mechanical functions in mitral stenosis. Turk Kardiyoloji Dernegi arsivi, Turk Kardiyoloji Derneginin yayin organidir. 2014;42(6):517–523. doi: 10.5543/tkda.2014.09147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kumar V., Jose V.J., Pati P.K., Jose J. Assessment of right ventricular strain and strain rate in patients with severe mitral stenosis before and after balloon mitral valvuloplasty. Indian Heart J. 2014;66(2):176–182. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2014.02.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Lu L., Hong L., Fang J., Chen L. Effectiveness of percutaneous balloon mitral valvuloplasty for rheumatic mitral stenosis with mild to severe mitral regurgitation. Biomed Res. Int. 2016;2016:3298343. doi: 10.1155/2016/3298343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Mahfouz R.A., Gouda M., Elawdy W., Dewedar A. Coronary flow reserve in mitral stenosis before and after percutaneous balloon mitral valvuloplasty. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging. 2017;33(9):1371–1376. doi: 10.1007/s10554-017-1121-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Morttada A., ElFiky A., Onsy A., Samir S., Toema G. Echocardiographic effect of successful balloon mitral valvuloplasty on right ventricular function. Egypt. Heart J. 2015;67(1):33–39. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Miura S., Arita T., Domei T., Yamaji K., Soga Y., Hyodo M. Impact of preprocedural atrial fibrillation on immediate and long-term outcomes after successful percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty of significant mitral stenosis. Cardiovasc. Interv. Ther. 2018;33(1):46–54. doi: 10.1007/s12928-016-0434-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Nunes M.C.P., Tan T.C., Elmariah S., Lodi-Junqueira L., Nascimento B.R., do Lago R. Net atrioventricular compliance is an independent predictor of cardiovascular death in mitral stenosis. Heart. 2017;103(23):1891. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2016-310955. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Omaygenc M., Dogan C., Bakal R., Candan O., Hatipoglu S., Babur guler G. Impedance cardiography for demonstrating procedural efficacy of percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty. Turkiye Klinikleri Cardiovascular Sciences. 2016;27 [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ozkan H., Bozat T., Tiryakioglu S.K., Ari H. Should we wait until severe pulmonary hypertension develops? Efficacy of percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty in patients with severe pulmonary hypertension, A subgroup analysis of our experience. Cardiol. J. 2016;23(2):184–188. doi: 10.5603/CJ.a2016.0010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Andrade P.Bd., Tebet M.A., Rinaldi F.S., Bienert I.Rd.C., Carvalho L.F., Galina J.Ad.T. In-hospital and late outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty in a center with intermediate volume of structural procedures. Revista Brasileira de Cardiologia Invasiva (English Edition) 2015;23(3):173–176. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Rajbhandari R., Malla R., Maskey A., Bhatta Y., Limbu Y., Sharma R. Percutaneous transvenous mitral commissurotomy in mitral stenosis and left atrial appendage clot patients in special conditions, Hospital-based study. Indian Heart J. 2016;68(6):788–791. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2016.04.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Ranganayakulu K.P., Rajasekhar D., Vanajakshamma V., Santosh Kumar C., Vasudeva Chetty P. N-terminal-pro-brain natriuretic peptide, a surrogate biomarker of combined clinical and hemodynamic outcomes following percutaneous transvenous mitral commissurotomy. J. Saudi Heart Assoc. 2016;28(2):81–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jsha.2015.07.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Rifaie O., Abdel-Rahman M.A., Samir S., Malik K.Z., Omar A.M.S. Worsening of left ventricular twist mechanics in isolated rheumatic mitral stenosis immediately after balloon mitral valvuloplasty. Egypt. Heart J. 2016;68(2):69–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Roushdy A.M., Raafat S.S., Shams K.A., El-Sayed M.H. Immediate and short-term effect of balloon mitral valvuloplasty on global and regional biventricular function, a two-dimensional strain echocardiographic study. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging. 2016;17(3):316–325. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jev157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Saad A., El-Salam K., Elzaki M., Ashry R. Assessment of interatrial dyssynchrony by tissue doppler imaging in mitral stenosis, effect of afterload reduction after balloon mitral valvuloplasty. Egypt. Heart J. 2015;68 [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Safi M., Bayat F., Ahmadi Z., Shekarchizadeh M., Khaheshi I., Naderian M. The change in NT-pro-BNP and post-PTMC echocardiography parameters in patients with mitral stenosis. A pilot study. Romanian journal of internal medicine = Revue roumaine de medecine interne. 2017;55(2):75–81. doi: 10.1515/rjim-2017-0005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Sengupta S.P., Amaki M., Bansal M., Fulwani M., Washimkar S., Hofstra L. Effects of percutaneous balloon mitral valvuloplasty on left ventricular deformation in patients with isolated severe mitral stenosis, a speckle-tracking strain echocardiographic study. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr., Off. Publ. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2014;27(6):639–647. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2014.01.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Sowdagar M.A., Subba Reddy Y.V. Immediate impact of successful percutaneous balloon mitral valvuloplasty on right and left ventricular functions, An echocardiographic study using load independent tissue velocity imaging indices. Indian Heart J. 2018;70(5):672–679. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2017.11.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Tefera E., Leye M., Garceau P., Bouchard D., Miró J. Percutaneous transmitral balloon commissurotomy using a single balloon with arteriovenous loop stabilisation, an alternative when there is no Inoue balloon. Cardiovasc J Afr. 2018;29(3):167–171. doi: 10.5830/CVJA-2018-010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Arava T.N., Durgaprasad R., Velam V., Gajjala O.R., Neelam V.K., Manohar S.N. Spontaneous left atrial echo contrast, mitral annular systolic velocity, and left atrial appendage late emptying velocity in predicting improvement of left atrial function after percutaneous balloon mitral valvuloplasty. Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, NY). 2018;35(2):162–169. doi: 10.1111/echo.13759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Tyczyński P., Chmielak Z., Rużyłło W., Demkow M., Dąbrowski M., Konka M. Percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty, beyond classic indications. Kardiologia polska. 2018;76(5):845–851. doi: 10.5603/KP.a2018.0036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Vieira M.L., Silva M.C., Wagner C.R., Dallan L.A., Kajita L.J., Oliveira W.A. Left atrium reverse remodeling in patients with mitral valve stenosis after percutaneous valvuloplasty, a 2- and 3-dimensional echocardiographic study. Revista espanola de cardiologia (English ed). 2013;66(1):17–23. doi: 10.1016/j.recesp.2012.05.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Vilvanathan V.K., Srinivas Prabhavathi Bhat B.C., Nanjappa M.C., Pandian B., Bagi V., Kasturi S. A randomized placebo-controlled trial with amiodarone for persistent atrial fibrillation in rheumatic mitral stenosis after successful balloon mitral valvuloplasty. Indian Heart J. 2016;68(5):671–677. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2016.02.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary data 1
mmc1.docx (2.1MB, docx)

Articles from International Journal of Cardiology. Heart & Vasculature are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES