Skip to main content
NCBI home page
EuroIntervention logoLink to EuroIntervention
. 2022 Mar 18;17(16):1300–1309. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00205

Transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair in patients with mitral annulus calcification

Estefanía Fernández-Peregrina 1,2, Isaac Pascual 3, Xavier Freixa 4, Gabriela Tirado-Conte 5, Rodrigo Estévez-Loureiro 6, Fernando Carrasco-Chinchilla 7, Tomás Benito-González 8, Lluis Asmarats 9, Laura Sanchís 10, Pilar Jiménez-Quevedo 11, Pablo Avanzas 12, Berenice Caneiro-Queija 13, Ana Isabel Molina-Ramos 14, Felipe Fernández-Vázquez 15, Chi-Hion Li 16, Eduardo Flores-Umanzor 17, Jordi Sans-Roselló 18,19, Luis Nombela-Franco 20, Dabit Arzamendi 21,22,*
PMCID: PMC9743252  PMID: 34483091

Abstract

Background

MAC is commonly found in patients affected with MR, and it is associated with high morbidity, mortality and worse cardiac surgical outcomes. Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair could be an alternative treatment, although there is little evidence in this population.

Aims

The aim of this study was to analyse the safety, efficacy and durability of MitraClip implantation in patients affected with mitral regurgitation (MR) and mitral annulus calcification (MAC).

Methods

We analysed the outcomes of 61 suitable patients affected with severe MR and moderate or severe MAC (the “MAC” group) and 791 patients with no or mild MAC (the “NoMAC” group) treated with the MitraClip device.

Results

Procedural success was similar (91.8% vs 95.1%, p=0.268, in MAC and NoMAC, respectively), with a very low rate of complications. At one-year follow-up, 90.6% of MAC and 79.5% of NoMAC patients had MR grade ≤2 (p=0.129), 80% in both groups remained in NYHA Functional Class ≤II, and a significant reduction in cardiac readmissions was observed (65% vs 78% in MAC vs NoMAC, p=0.145). One-year mortality tended to be higher in MAC patients (19.7% vs 11.3%, p=0.050), with no difference in cardiovascular mortality (15.3% vs 9.2%, p=0.129).

Conclusions

MitraClip use in selected patients with moderate or severe MAC is safe, feasible and achieves good clinical and echocardiographic results at one-year follow-up.

Introduction

Mitral annular calcification (MAC) is a chronic degenerative process of increasing prevalence in developed countries which can be present in up to 24% of patients referred for mitral valve surgery1,2,3. It has been associated with several conditions including age and female sex, and some cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidaemia and smoking habit or chronic kidney disease. However, the mechanisms in which these conditions could lead to the development of MAC are still not clear. Clinically, MAC has been related to the presence of vascular disease, arrhythmia and mitral valve disease1,2,4,5,6,7,8.

Anatomically, MAC is found most commonly in the posterior annulus, but calcification might extend beyond the annulus1,9 to the leaflets and subvalvular apparatus. Surgery of the mitral valve in this setting remains a challenge, MAC being a strong predictor of mortality and worse cardiac surgical outcomes in previous surgical reports1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18. In recent years, surgical techniques have evolved in this field accomplishing better survival rates; however, there remains a non-negligible rate of post-operative complications16,19. The high morbidity of patients with MAC together with the surgical complexity have fuelled an urgent need for less invasive strategies for treating these patients.

Transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair with the MitraClip system (Abbott Vascular) has been established as a valid alternative to surgery in high surgical risk patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR)20,21,22,23,24,25,26. However, its efficacy in patients affected with MAC remains uncertain, given the paucity of data and the poor outcomes observed with the Alfieri surgical technique in this setting27,28,29. Moreover, these patients have been excluded from randomised clinical trials, based on the assumption that this calcification might extend to the

leaflets or might induce high mitral gradients after edge-to-edge repair. Hence, we sought to analyse the safety and efficacy of the MitraClip system in patients who presented moderate or severe MAC and who were otherwise suitable candidates for this treatment, focusing on procedural success, durability and clinical benefit in a “real-world” setting.

Methods

The Spanish MitraClip multicentre registry prospectively included all consecutive patients with symptomatic MR grade ≥3 undergoing transcatheter mitral valve repair from June 2012 in 24 participating institutions. This study evaluated the data from all patients enrolled by seven of these participating institutions. All patients signed informed consent for the procedure and all studies were performed with the approval of the local ethics committee.

In all participant sites, patients were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team, which included a non-interventional cardiologist, an interventional cardiologist, a cardiothoracic surgeon and an anaesthetist. All patients deemed to be at high risk for surgery were considered for percutaneous repair. Anatomically, patients with calcification that extended to the margin of the leaflets, had short (<7 mm) or thick leaflets (>5 mm) or had a preprocedural mean gradient greater than 5 mmHg or a mitral area <4 cm² were declined for percutaneous repair.

Baseline demographics and echocardiographic parameters

Baseline demographic parameters included age, gender, weight and height, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, renal impairment and chronic haemodialysis, smoking, atrial fibrillation, previous cerebrovascular disease, ischaemic heart disease, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Class, Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score and heart failure hospitalisation during the previous year. Baseline echocardiographic parameters were based on preprocedural transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) following the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging recommendations30,31. A categorical classification of MAC grade based on preprocedural echocardiography was used considering: 1) mild calcification of the annulus, when calcification was limited to less than one third of the annulus; 2) moderate calcification, when it involved one third to two thirds of the annulus, and 3) severe calcification, when it involved more than two thirds of the annulus or in case of a thickness >4 mm7,9. Two groups were defined according to the MAC grade: “NoMAC”, when no or mild annulus calcification was present, and “MAC”, when moderate or severe mitral annulus calcification was found.

Procedural success and complexity

Technical success was defined as correct implantation of at least one clip and the absence of procedural mortality or emergent cardiovascular intervention related to the implantation of the device or vascular access32. Procedural success was defined as MR grade reduction to 2 or less32. Procedure duration, number of clips and acute complications were recorded in order to assess the complexity of the repair. Procedure duration was defined as the duration from anaesthetic induction to the end of the procedure. Procedure-related bleeding and its severity were defined according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria32.

Echocardiographic and clinical follow-up

At follow-up, NYHA Class, MR grade, mean mitral gradient, systolic pulmonary artery pressure (SPAP), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular dimensions were recorded as well as the need for subsequent mitral valve surgery, heart failure rehospitalisation and mortality.

Statistical analysis

Frequencies were calculated for categorical variables whereas mean±standard deviation (SD) or median (interquartile range) were calculated for numerical variables according to their distribution. Assessment of normality was performed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Differences between groups were tested using the chi-square test for categorical variables and the Student’s t-test, Kruskal-Wallis or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables. A 95% level of significance was applied in the statistical tests (p<0.05). The Kaplan-Meier survival estimator was used to determine the time to all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and readmissions for heart failure at one-year follow-up. Data from the survival curves and event-free survival rates along with the log-rank test were used for comparison between groups. Multivariate analysis of the association of MAC grade was performed using Cox proportional hazards modelling. The Stata 13.1 statistical package was used for data analysis (StataCorp).

Results

Baseline demographics and echocardiographic parameters

The baseline characteristics of the two groups are shown in Table 1. A total of 852 patients were included. Of these, 256 (30%) presented some degree of MAC: 42 (5.5%) were found to have moderate MAC and 19 (2.5%) had severe MAC. Therefore, 61 patients were allocated to the MAC group and 791 to the NoMAC group. MAC patients were older (78.3±8.7 vs 72.8±10.4 years old, p=0.001) and mostly female (44.3% male in the MAC group vs 66% male in the NoMAC group, p=0.001), more frequently had a history of previous non-mitral valvular intervention (24.6% vs 11.3%, p=0.002) and presented worse NYHA Functional Class (95% vs 85% NYHA Class ≥3, p=0.037) and STS score (4 vs 3, p=0.027) at the time of repair. On the other hand, NoMAC patients were more commonly smokers (48.5% vs 29.5%, p=0.004). There were no differences between groups in relation to hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease or haemodialysis, previous stroke, ischaemic heart disease, rate of previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as well as for the EuroSCORE II.

Table 1. Baseline demographic and echocardiographic characteristics.

Overall n=852 No/mild MAC n=791 Moderate/severe MAC n=61 p-value
Severe MAC (%) 19 (2.5) 0 (0) 19 (31.1) N/A
Age, years 73.2±10.4 72.8±10.4 78.3±8.7 0.001
Sex, male (%) 549 (64.4) 522 (66) 27 (44.3) 0.001
BMI 27.1±4.8 27.1±4.8 27.7±5.3 0.304
Hypertension, n (%) 631 (74.2) 585 (74) 46 (75.4) 0.815
Diabetes mellitus, n (%) 363 (42.6) 339 (42.9) 24 (39.3) 0.593
GFR <60, n (%) 427 (50.3) 390 (49.5) 37 (60.7) 0.093
Smoking, n (%) 400 (47.1) 382 (48.5) 18 (29.5) 0.004
Haemodialysis, n (%) 22 (2.6) 20 (2.5) 2 (3.3) 0.722
Atrial fibrillation, n (%) 499 (58.6) 460 (58.2) 39 (63.9) 0.323
Previous stroke, n (%) 84 (9.9) 78 (9.9) 6 (9.8) 0.990
Ischaemic cardiomyopathy, n (%) 442 (51.9) 416 (52.7) 26 (42.6) 0.131
Previous PCI, n (%) 292 (34.4) 278 (35.2) 14 (23) 0.052
Previous CABG, n (%) 127 (15) 117 (14.9) 10 (16.4) 0.751
Previous valvular intervention, n (%) 104 (12.2) 89 (11.3) 15 (24.6) 0.002
NYHA Class, n (%) 1 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.037
2 121 (14.3) 118 (15) 3 (5)
3 557 (65.9) 509 (64.8) 48 (80)
4 167 (19.8 158 (20.1) 9 (15)
Previous year heart failure admission, n (%) 549 (64.6) 515 (65.2) 34 (56.7) 0.183
STS score 3 (2-6) 3 (2-6) 4 (3-7) 0.027
EuroSCORE II 5 (2.9-8.4) 4.9 (2.8-8.4) 5.6 (4-10.6) 0.260
LVEF (%) 41.3±15.2 40.4±15 52.5±12.3 <0.001
EDLVD, mm 60.2±10.3 60.8±10.2 53.1±8.9 <0.001
ESLVD, mm 43.9±13.5 44.9±13.4 34.9±10.6 <0.001
MR grade, n (%) 1-2 0 (0) 0 (0) 0(0) 0.336
3 118 (14) 112 (14.3) 6 (9.9)
4 728 (86.1) 673 (85.7) 55 (90.2)
MR mechanism, n (%) Primary 261 (30.7) 237 (30.1) 24 (39.3) 0.108
Secondary 458 (54) 433 (55) 25 (41)
Mixed 130 (15.3) 118 (15) 12 (19.7)
Subvalvular apparatus calcification, n (%) 58 (7.1) 37 (4.9) 21 (35.6) <0.001
Posterior leaflet restriction, n (%) 394 (46.5) 369 (46.9) 25 (41) 0.373
Eccentric jet, n (%) 266 (33) 233 (31.3) 33 (54.1) <0.001
Multiple jets, n (%) 98 (12.4) 88 (12.1) 10 (16.4) 0.330
EROA, cm2 0.5±0.2 0.5±0.3 0.7±0.3 0.002
Mitral mean gradient, mmHg 1.8±0.9 1.7±0.8 2.3±1 <0.001
Mitral valvular area, cm² 5.3±1.2 5.3±1.3 4.9±0.9 0.088
Systolic pulmonary artery pressure, mmHg 50.7±17.1 50.7±16.8 50.4±20.7 0.903
Anterior leaflet thickness, mm 2.6 ±1.3 2.6±1.3 2.6±1.4 0.972
Posterior leaflet thickness, mm 2.4± 1.3 2.4±1.3 2.4±1.3 0.804
Anterior leaflet length, mm 21.1±6.3 21.2±6.2 19.8±6.9 0.082
Posterior leaflet length, mm 11.7±2.8 11.7±2.8 11.6±3.5 0.679
Coaptation length, mm 2.9±1.7 3±1.7 2.5±1.7 0.060
Coaptation height, mm 8.3±3.7 8.4±3.8 7±3.5 0.008
BMI: body mass index; CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting; EDLVD: end-diastolic left ventricular diameter; EROA: effective regurgitant orifice area; ESLVD: end-systolic left ventricular diameter; GFR: glomerular filtration rate; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; MAC: mitral annular calcification; MR: mitral regurgitation; NYHA: New York Heart Association; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; STS: Society of Thoracic Surgeons
Open in a new tab

Echocardiographic analysis showed that MAC patients had smaller left ventricular diameters (end-diastolic left ventricular diameter [EDLVD] 53.1±8.9 vs 60.8±10.2 mm, p<0.001 and end-systolic left ventricular diameter [ESLVD] 34.9±10.6 vs 44.9±13.4 mm, p<0.001) and better LVEF (52.5±12.3 vs 40.4±15%, p<0.001). The mechanisms of MR were equally distributed between the groups (primary in 39.3% vs 30.1%, secondary in 41% vs 55%, and mixed in 19.7% vs 15.3% in the MAC and NoMAC groups, respectively). Most of the patients (90.2% of MAC patients and 85.7% of NoMAC patients) presented MR grade 4 at the time of repair, although the MAC group exhibited larger effective regurgitant orifice areas (EROAs) (0.7±0.3 vs 0.5±0.3 cm², p=0.002). MAC was mostly localised in the posterior annulus (77% of the patients) and, as expected, MAC patients had more challenging anatomies as they presented with greater subvalvular apparatus calcification (35.6% vs 4.9%, p<0.001), more eccentric jets (54.1% vs 31.3%, p<0.001), and higher baseline transvalvular gradients (2.3±1 vs 1.7±0.8 mmHg, p<0.001), compared to NoMAC patients.

Procedural outcomes and complexity

Procedural data are shown in Table 2. Procedural success was similar in both groups (technical success: 95.1% vs 98.1%, p=0.144; procedural success: 91.8% vs 95.1%, p=0.268, in the MAC and NoMAC groups, respectively) without differences in procedural duration (144±61 vs 135±66 min, p=0.327, MAC vs NoMAC, respectively). Residual gradient was higher in MAC patients (3.0 vs 3.6 mmHg, p=0.001) being greater than 5 mmHg in 18.5% of them, in comparison to 5% of NoMAC patients, p=0.001 (Figure 1A).

Table 2. Procedural and in-hospital outcomes.

Overall n=852 No/mild MAC n=791 Moderate/severe MAC n=61 p-value
Procedure duration, min 136±66 135±66 144±61 0.327
Technical success, n (%) 833 (97.9) 775 (98.1) 58 (95.1) 0.114
Procedural success, n (%) 807 (94.8) 751 (95.1) 56 (91.8) 0.268
Number of clips, n (%) 1 497 (56.7) 455 (57.9) 42 (68.9) 0.474
2 290 (34.2) 275 (35) 15 (24.6)
3 57 (6.7) 53 (6.7) 4 (6.6)
≥4 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3) 0 (0)
Partial/complete detachment, n (%) 19 (2.2) 19 (2.4) 0 (0) 0.224
Embolisation, n (%) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) N/A
Chord rupture, n (%) 6 (0.7) 5 (0.6) 1 (1.7) 0.357
Conversion to surgery, n (%) 7 (0.8) 5 (0.6) 2 (3.3) 0.027
Major bleeding MVARC scale, n (%) 39 (4.6) 38 (4.8) 1 (1.6) 0.254
Cardiac tamponade, n (%) 7 (0.8) 7 (0.9) 0 (0) 0.461
Residual MR grade, n (%) 0 30 (3.6) 28 (3.6) 2 (3.3) 0.194
1 446 (52.8) 420 (53.6) 26 (42.6)
2 308 (36.5) 281 (35.9) 27 (44.3)
3 45 (5.3) 42 (5.4) 3 (4.9)
4 15 (1.8) 12 (1.5) 3 (4.9)
Residual mitral mean gradient, mmHg 3.1±1.6 3±1.3 3.6±1.3 0.001
In hospital mortality, n (%) 7 (0.8) 6 (0.8) 1 (1.6) 0.513
Stroke, n (%) 3 (0.4) 3 (0.4) 0 0.504
MAC: mitral annular calcification; MR: mitral regurgitation; MVARC: Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium
Open in a new tab

Figure 1. Haemodynamic and clinical follow-up.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

A) Changes over time in mean mitral gradient during follow-up according to mitral annulus calcification (MAC) grade. B) Changes over time in New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Class during follow-up according to MAC grade. C) Changes over time in mitral regurgitation (MR) grade during follow-up according to MAC grade.

Procedural complications were infrequent and occurred in 4 MAC patients and 70 NoMAC patients, mostly vascular access bleeding (p=0.549). Conversion to surgery during index hospitalisation occurred in 2 patients (3.28%) in the MAC group and 5 patients (0.63%) in the NoMAC group (p=0.027). Seven in-hospital deaths were reported, 1 in the MAC group, the others in the NoMAC group (p=0.513). Three strokes occurred during the index hospitalisation, all in the noMAC group (p=0.504).

Echocardiographic and clinical follow-up

Median follow-up was 455 days (204-916) in the MAC group and 385 days (160-726) in the NoMAC group. At 30 days, most patients had experienced an improvement in MR severity of at least one grade (93% in both groups, p=0.576), as well as an improvement in NYHA Functional Class of at least one grade (82% in both groups, p=0.567), most (~80%) being in NYHA Functional Class ≤II (p=0.692) (Figure 1B).

At one-year follow-up, 90.6% of MAC patients and 79.5% of NoMAC patients had residual MR grade 2 or less (p=0.129) (Figure 1C). A reduction in SPAP was observed in both groups; there were no significant changes in LVEF between baseline and one-year follow-up echocardiogram (Table 3). Mean gradient after clip implantation increased significantly in both groups between discharge and one-year follow-up (Table 3). There was no association at Cox analysis between preprocedural mitral valve area, MR grade or LVEF changes with the increase of mean gradient at follow-up (hazard ratio [HR] 0.8, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.2-4.2, p=0.802; HR 1, 95% CI: 0.9-1.1, p=0.787; HR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.6-1.5, p=0.745, respectively). Only 9 patients (1.14%), all in the NoMAC group (p=0.250), required reintervention during follow-up: 1 underwent a heart transplant, 2 had a mitral valve replacement, and 6 had a redo transcatheter mitral valve repair.

Table 3. Echocardiographic changes over time compared by paired samples.

Baseline
(NoMAC= 791 MAC=61) 		Discharge
(NoMAC=785 MAC=59) 		1-year follow-up (NoMAC=361 MAC=32) p-value Inter p-value
TDLVD, mm NoMAC 60.8±10.2 58.8±10.5 <0.001 0.958
MAC 53.1±8.9 54±9.1 0.060
TSLVD, mm NoMAC 44.9±13.4 44.2±14 0.815 0.765
MAC 34.9±10.6 37.3±7 0.442
LVEF, % NoMAC 40.4±15 40.5±15 0.621 0.551
MAC 52.5±12.3 52.8±15.9 0.563
Systolic pulmonary artery pressure, mmHg NoMAC 50.7±16.8 43.3±14.2 <0.000 0.055
MAC 50.4±20.7 40±15.7 0.017
Mitral mean gradient, mmHg NoMAC 1.7±0.8 3±1.3 <0.001 0.049
MAC 2.3±1 3.6±1.3 <0.001
NoMAC 3±1.3 3.6±1.7 <0.001 0.894
MAC 3.6±1.3 4.6±2.1 0.036
Residual MR, % ≤2 NoMAC 0 93.1 <0.001 0.446
MAC 0 90.2 <0.001
NoMAC 93.1 78.7 0.815 0.778
MAC 90.2 93.8 0.500
LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; MAC: mitral annular calcification, NoMAC: no/mild mitral annular calcification; MR: mitral regurgitation; TDLVD: telediastolic left ventricular diameter; TSLVD: telesystolic left ventricular diameter
Open in a new tab

Clinically, patients remained in NYHA Functional Class II or less in 80.5% and 78.5% of MAC and NoMAC patients, respectively (p=0.453) (Figure 1B). Along with NYHA Class improvement, a global reduction in readmissions for heart failure within the year post MitraClip procedure was observed (21.3% vs 14.4%, p=0.145, for the MAC and NoMAC groups, respectively), translating into a reduction of almost 78% and 65%, respectively (p=0.145), as compared to the year before the procedure.

There were 11 patients in the MAC group for whom two years of follow-up data were available: 72.7% of them maintained an MR grade of 2 or less and an NYHA Class II or less. None of them required any additional mitral intervention during this period.

At one year, all-cause mortality was higher among MAC patients (19.7% vs 11.3%, p=0.050), with no differences in cardiovascular mortality (15.3% vs 9.2%, p=0.129). Of the 101 deaths within the first year of follow-up, 79 were cardiovascular and 22 were non-cardiovascular. Adjusted Cox model regression survival analysis showed that there was a marginal correlation of MAC with one-year all-cause mortality (HR 2, 95% CI: 0.9-4.3, p=0.070) but not with cardiovascular mortality (HR 2, 95% CI: 0.8-5.1, p=0.123) or unplanned cardiovascular readmission (HR 1.5, 95% CI: 0.8-3, p=0.210). Mean gradient of ≥5 mmHg at discharge was also not an independent predictor of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality (HR 2.1, 95% CI: 0.5-8.6, p=0.321, and HR 1.3, 95% CI: 0.5-3.2, p=0.624, respectively) or an independent predictor of unplanned cardiovascular rehospitalisation (HR 0.8, 95% CI: 0.31-2.00, p=0.633) in the MAC cohort.

As shown by Kaplan-Meier curves at one-year follow-up (Figure 2), there was a higher all-cause mortality risk in MAC patients (p=0.030) with no significant differences between groups in cardiovascular mortality (p=0.159) and rehospitalisation due to heart failure (p=0.115).

Figure 2. One-year survival curves for the composite event (A) all-cause mortality, (B) cardiovascular-related mortality, and (C) freedom from heart failure rehospitalisation, according to MAC grade.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Discussion

The main findings of this study are the following: 1) Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair with the MitraClip system in selected patients with moderate or severe MAC is comparable to patients without MAC in terms of feasibility, as demonstrated by the high technical success rate and the low incidence of procedural complications, despite a higher rate of conversion to surgery. 2) At one-year follow-up, the durability of the repair in selected patients with moderate or severe MAC is similar to that in those without MAC. 3) As expected, mean mitral gradients after MitraClip implantation were higher in MAC patients but it this did not imply significantly worse outcomes in terms of mortality or unplanned cardiac readmissions. 4) Patients with moderate or severe MAC also benefitted clinically from this procedure, as they experienced significant and sustained improvement in symptoms and no significant differences in cardiovascular mortality at one year (Central illustration).

Central illustration. Transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair in patients with mitral annulus calcification.

Central illustration

Open in a new tab

Patients with severe MR and MAC represent a major surgical challenge as MAC implies complex surgery and a higher rate of post-operative complications and, in some series, repair failure10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18. Therefore, a need for less invasive and yet efficient alternative therapies arises. The MitraClip system has become an effective alternative to open heart surgery for treating MR in high surgical risk patients20,21,22,23,24,25,26. However, even though MAC patients are often turned down for mitral valve surgery, they are also typically excluded from randomised clinical trials and from early feasibility studies with transcatheter mitral valve replacement therapies.

To date, only one single-centre study has assessed the safety of mitral valve repair with the MitraClip system in patients with MAC33. A total of 28 patients with moderate or severe MAC were assessed, showing high procedural success and similar improvements in MR grade and Functional Class, as compared to patients with no or mild MAC.

To date, the present study constitutes the largest multicentre experience conducted with the MitraClip device in patients with significant concomitant MAC and MR. In our study, from a cohort of 852 patients, 61 patients were found to have moderate or severe MAC on the preprocedural echocardiogram, 19 (31%) of whom had severe MAC. From a clinical standpoint, MAC patients were older and had a more advanced Functional Class. They also exhibited higher preprocedural transvalvular gradients along with larger EROAs despite there being no differences in mitral valve area, potentially implying a greater MR in this group. However, this could also reflect a different haemodynamic situation, as these patients have smaller ventricles with higher LVEFs. Of note, percutaneous repair was feasible in the vast majority of patients, with 98% technical success and 95% procedural success, in line with previous studies with the MitraClip device20,21,22,23,24,25,26. Only 5 patients with moderate or severe MAC had an unsuccessful procedure: 2 of them experienced a posterior leaflet tear and massive MR that led to emergent cardiac surgery, and for the remaining 3 patients, a reduction in MR grade ≤2+ could not be achieved. Both patients who experienced a posterior leaflet tear presented moderate MAC with no extension to the subvalvular apparatus, neither of them had a short or restrictive posterior leaflet, or calcified or thin leaflets. As for the 3 patients in whom an MR grade ≤2 could not be achieved, 2 of them presented severe MAC and subvalvular apparatus calcification and a preprocedural mitral gradient of 3 mmHg and only a final MR grade 3 could be obtained with a final post-procedural gradient of 6 and 4 mmHg, respectively. The third patient had moderate MAC with no extension to the subvalvular apparatus but had multiple jets. In that patient, finally no clip was implanted, as a satisfactory reduction of MR grade could not be achieved. Larger studies are needed to determine predictors of success in this population. However, the overall the results obtained in this study are encouraging considering that patients with MAC exhibited more complex anatomies (increased subvalvular apparatus calcification and more eccentric jets) and higher MR grades.

As expected, immediate post-procedural gradients were significantly higher in MAC patients: ≥5 mmHg in 18.5% of them but <8 mmHg in all cases. Nonetheless, even although a residual gradient ≥5 mmHg has been previously described as a potential predictor of worse clinical outcomes, in our cohort it was not independently associated with an increase in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality or unplanned cardiac readmissions at follow-up, in line with the results obtained in the COAPT trial34,35 (see also R. Halaby, Lack of association of mitral valve gradient after MitraClip with outcomes in functional mitral regurgitation: results from the COAPT trial. Presented at ACC.20 World Congress of Cardiology Virtual, March 29, 2020). The mean gradient after clip implantation also increased significantly in both groups between discharge and one-year follow-up (Table 3). There are some possible explanations for this, e.g., improvement in LVEF or decrease in mitral valve area, but none of them could be proven in our cohort as we found no association at Cox analysis between the former variables and mean gradient at follow-up.

Importantly, in the MAC group, there were no cases of clip detachment, embolisation or stroke, and only one in-hospital death. However, there was a higher conversion to cardiac surgery (3.28%) during index hospitalisation than in the NoMAC group due, in the two patients that experienced this complication, to posterior leaflet tear that led to massive MR. Nonetheless, overall these results are remarkable considering the relatively higher periprocedural mortality rates observed in the early experience with transcatheter mitral valve replacement (up to 14% vs 1.6% in the MAC group of the present study), which may be considered as another interesting alternative in the presence of moderate or severe MAC and risk of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction36,37,38,39.

Repair durability in this setting might have been considered an important concern. This is based on the absence of long-term durability data for transcatheter mitral valve repair in such patients and also on the basis of an unfavourable surgical predicate with the Alfieri technique in this setting, which resulted in higher gradients, reduced durability and increased need for reoperation27. Nonetheless, in our study, transcatheter mitral repair with the MitraClip device in MAC patients resulted in sustained clinical and echocardiographic improvements at one-year follow-up, with 80% of patients remaining at NYHA Functional Class I-II and with a residual MR ≤2 in 91% of MAC patients. Importantly, no reintervention was required in those patients within the first year after the MitraClip procedure (0% in the MAC group, 1.1% in the NoMAC group).

Overall, these findings translated into a substantial reduction in the number of heart failure-related rehospitalisations following the procedure, as compared to the number of admissions of these patients the year before the MitraClip procedure was performed, similar to the benefit observed in patients without MAC. This clinical and echocardiographic benefit was also maintained in the 11 MAC patients for whom two years of follow-up data were available: an NYHA Class I or II was still observed in 72.7% of them along with an MR grade of 2 or less in 72.7%, without any additional mitral intervention during this period. These results reinforce the potential use of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair to treat symptomatic patients with high grade MR at increased surgical risk and severely calcified mitral valve annulus, in the absence of significant mitral stenosis or leaflet calcification.

There was a marginal correlation of all-cause mortality with MAC patients, even though MAC was not found to be an independent predictor for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality at one year. It is noteworthy that MAC patients are often elderly, with increased morbidity, mortality and cardiovascular disease, often making them ineligible for open heart surgery due to pre-existing comorbidities or technical reasons (high calcium burden). Hence, this association is probably due to a higher comorbidity burden in these patients, rather than the procedure itself, which carried a low rate (<2%) of in-hospital mortality.

Overall, use of the MitraClip device in patients with significant annular calcification resulted in significant clinical improvement with durable reduction of MR at one year. Our results highlight the safety and efficacy as well as the one-year durability of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair in patients with MAC. This constitutes a reasonable alternative to surgery in this subgroup of patients and may probably be considered the first choice therapy in patients ineligible for surgery and with favourable anatomy for percutaneous edge-to-edge repair.

Limitations

Our study had several limitations. First, it was a retrospective observational multicentre study which has limitations inherent to its nature. In addition, the grading of MAC was qualitative and based on echocardiography, with no centralised core laboratory adjudication of echocardiographic data or clinical events. Second, medical treatment before and after the procedure was not systematically recorded and may have influenced post-operative outcomes. Finally, the study population was limited to one specific type of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair device (MitraClip); therefore, the results may not be generalisable to other edge-to-edge therapies. Of note, the study was conducted in a highly selected MAC population and the procedures were performed in highly experienced centres. Thus, further research is required before generalising these results.

Conclusions

Percutaneous repair with the MitraClip system in patients with significant MAC and high surgical risk is safe and feasible, with sustained improvement in NYHA functional class and MR reduction at one year in the vast majority of patients (~80%). These results suggest that percutaneous edge-to-edge repair may be considered as a valid alternative to surgery in selected patients with severe MR and MAC, in the absence of significant mitral stenosis or leaflet calcification. Further evaluation in larger-scale trials is required to determine predictors of procedural success and long-term outcomes in MAC patients treated with the MitraClip system.

Impact on daily practice

MAC is a condition commonly found in patients affected with severe MR that is associated with a high morbidity and mortality and worse surgical outcomes. Therefore, the need for a less invasive and yet efficient alternative to surgery arises in this setting. In this study, transcatheter edge-to-edge repair with the MitraClip system in selected patients with moderate or severe MAC was found to be a safe and feasible alternative that achieved a significant reduction of MR grade and a substantial clinical improvement at one-year follow-up. Thus, MitraClip implantation emerges as a valid therapeutic option in this population, even though larger studies are needed in order to determine predictors of good clinical outcomes.

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest statement

R.D. Estevez-Loureiro, L. Nombela-Franco, L. Sanchis, C-H. Li and D. Arzamendi have served as proctors for Abbott Vascular. X. Freixa, R. Estévez-Loureiro, and L. Nombela-Franco are consultants for Abbott Vascular and have received personal fees from Abbott. C-H. Li has received personal fees from Abbott. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Abbreviations

EDLVD

end-diastolic left ventricular diameter

EROA

effective regurgitant orifice area

ESLVD

end-systolic left ventricular diameter

LVEF

left ventricular ejection fraction

MAC

mitral annular calcification

MR

mitral regurgitation

NYHA

New York Heart Association

PCI

percutaneous coronary intervention

SPAP

systolic pulmonary artery pressure

TEE

transoesophageal echocardiography

TTE

transthoracic echocardiography

Contributor Information

Estefanía Fernández-Peregrina, Department of Cardiology, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Medicine, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Isaac Pascual, Heart Area, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.

Xavier Freixa, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Institut Clinic Cardiovascular, Barcelona, Spain.

Gabriela Tirado-Conte, Cardiovascular Institute, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, IdISSC, Madrid, Spain.

Rodrigo Estévez-Loureiro, Interventional Cardiology Unit, Hospital Álvaro Cunqueiro, Vigo, Spain.

Fernando Carrasco-Chinchilla, Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, CIBERCV, Málaga, Spain.

Tomás Benito-González, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of León, León, Spain.

Lluis Asmarats, Department of Cardiology, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.

Laura Sanchís, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Institut Clinic Cardiovascular, Barcelona, Spain.

Pilar Jiménez-Quevedo, Cardiovascular Institute, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, IdISSC, Madrid, Spain.

Pablo Avanzas, Heart Area, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.

Berenice Caneiro-Queija, Interventional Cardiology Unit, Hospital Álvaro Cunqueiro, Vigo, Spain.

Ana Isabel Molina-Ramos, Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, CIBERCV, Málaga, Spain.

Felipe Fernández-Vázquez, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of León, León, Spain.

Chi-Hion Li, Department of Cardiology, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.

Eduardo Flores-Umanzor, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Institut Clinic Cardiovascular, Barcelona, Spain.

Jordi Sans-Roselló, Department of Cardiology, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Medicine, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Luis Nombela-Franco, Cardiovascular Institute, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, IdISSC, Madrid, Spain.

Dabit Arzamendi, Department of Cardiology, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Medicine, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

References

  1. Abramowitz Y, Jilaihawi H, Chakravarty T, Mack MJ, Makkar RR. Mitral Annulus Calcification. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66:1934–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.08.872. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Elmariah S, Budoff MJ, Delaney JAC, Hamirani Y, Eng J, Fuster V, Kronmal RA, Halperin JL, O`Brien KD. Risk factors associated with the incidence and progression of mitral annulus calcification: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Am Heart J. 2013;166:904–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.08.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Fusini L, Ali SG, Tamborini G, Muratori M, Gripari P, Maffessanti F, Celeste F, Guglielmo M, Cefalú C, Alamanni F, Zanobini M, Pepi M. Prevalence of calcification of the mitral valve annulus in patients undergoing surgical repair of mitral valve prolapse. Am J Cardiol. 2014;113:1867–73. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.03.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Faggiano P, Dasseni N, Gaibazzi N, Rossi A, Henei M, Pressman G. Cardiac calcification as a marker of subclinical atherosclerosis and predictor of cardiovascular events: a review of the evidence. Eur J Prev Card. 2019;26:1191–204. doi: 10.1177/2047487319830485. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cavalcanti LRP, Pompeu MPBO, Perazoo AM, Escorel Neto, Gomes RAF, Weymann A, Zhigalov K, Ruhparwar A, Lima RC. Mitral Annular Calcification: Association with Atherosclerosis and Clinical Implications. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2020;22:9. doi: 10.1007/s11883-020-0825-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Carino D, Agostinelli A, El Qarra, Gripshi F, Nicolini F. Mitral annulus calcification: current management and future challenges. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2019;27:565–72. doi: 10.1177/0218492319867237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kohsaka S, Jin Z, Rundek T, Boden-Albala B, Homma S, Sacco RL, Di Tullio. Impact of mitral annular calcification on cardiovascular events in a multiethnic community: the Northern Manhattan Study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1:617–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2008.07.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fox CS, Vasan RS, Parise H, Levy D, O’Donnell CJ, D’Agostino RB, Benjamin EJ, Framingham Heart. Mitral annular calcification predicts cardiovascular morbidity and mortality: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2003;107:1492–6. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000058168.26163.bc. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Movva R, Murthy K, Romero-Corral A, Seetha Rammohan, Fumo P, Pressman GS. Calcification of the mitral valve and annulus: systematic evaluation of effects on valve anatomy and function. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26:1135–42. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2013.06.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Omnran AS, Woo A, David TE, Feindel C, Rakowski H, Siu S. Intraoperative transeophageal echocardiography accurately predicts mitral valve anatomy and suitability for repair. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2002;15:950–7. doi: 10.1067/mje.2002.121534. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Saran N, Greason KL, Schaff HV, Cicek SM, Daly RC, Maltais S, Stulak JM, Pochettino A, King KS, Dearani JA, Said SM. Does Mitral Valve Calcium in Patients Undergoing Mitral Valve Replacement Portend Worse Survival? Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;107:444–52. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.07.098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Tomsic A, Hiemstra Y, van Brakel, Versteegh MIM, Marsan NA, Klautz RJM, Palmen M. Outcomes of Valve Repair for Degenerative Disease in Patients With Mitral Annular Calcification. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;107:1195–201. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.08.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Feindel C, Tufail Z, David TE, Armstrong S. Mitral valve surgery in patients with extensive calcification of the mitral annulus. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;126:177–82. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5223(03)00081-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Okada Y. Surgical management of mitral annular calcification. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;61:619–25. doi: 10.1007/s11748-013-0207-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cammack PL, Edie RN, Edmunds LH. Bar calcification of the mitral anulus. A risk factor in mitral valve operations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1987;94:399–404. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Salhiyyah K, Kattach H, Ashoub A, Patrick D, Miskolczi S, Tsang G, Ohri SK, Barlow CW, Velissaris T, Livesey S. Mitral Valve replacement in severely calcified mitral valve annulus: a 10-year experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52:440–4. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ben-Avi R, Orlov B, Sternik L, Kogan A, Kuperstien R, Shalabi A, Ram E, Lipey A, Raanani E. Short- and long-term results after prosthetic mitral valve implantation in patients with severe mitral annulus calcification. Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg. 2017;24:876–81. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivx043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. David TE, Feindel CM, Armstrong S, Sun Z. Reconstruction of the mitral anulus. A ten-year experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1995;110:1323–32. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5223(95)70055-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Uchimuro T, Fukui T, Shimizu A, Takanashi S. Mitral Valve Surgery in Patients With Severe Mitral Annular Calcification. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101:889–95. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.08.071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Maisano F, Franzen O, Baldus S, Schäfer U, Hausleiter J, Butter C, Ussia GP, Sievert H, Richjardt G, Widder JD, Moccetti T, Schillinger W. Percutaneous mitral valve interventions in the real world: early and 1-year results from the ACCESS-EU, a prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized post-approval study of the MitraClip Therapy in Europe. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1052–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.02.094. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Feldman T, Foster E, Glower DD, Kar S, Rinaldi MJ, Fail PS, Smalling RW, Siegel R, Rose GA, Engeron E, Loghin C, Trento A, Skipper ER, Fudge T, Letsou GV, Massaro JM, Mauri L EVEREST II Investigators. Percutaneous repair or surgery for mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1395–406. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kar S, Feldman T, Qasim A, Trento A, Kapadia S, Pedersen W, Lim DS, Kipperman R, Smalling RW, Bajwa T, Hermann HC, Hermiller JB, Lasala JM, Reisman M, Glower D, Mauri L, Whitlow P, EVEREST II. Five-year outcomes of transcatheter reduction of significant mitral regurgitation in high-surgical-risk patients. Heart. 2019;105:1622–8. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Stone GW, Lindenfeld JA, Abraham WT, Kar S, Lim DS, Mishell JM, Whisenant B, Grayburn PA, Rionaldi M, Kapadia SR, Rajagopal V, Sarembock IJ, Brieke A, Marx SO, Cohen DJ, Weissman NJ, Mack MJ COAPT Investigators. Transcatheter Mitral-Valve Repair in Patients with Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2307–18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1806640. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Obadia JF, Messika-Zeitoun D, Leurent G, Lung B, Bonnet G, Piriou N, Lefèvre T, Piot C, Rouleau F, Carrié D, Nejjari M, Ohlmann P, Leclercq F, Saint Etienne, Teiger E, Leroux L, Karam N, Michel N, Gilard M, Donal E, Trochu JN, Cormier B, Armoiry X, Boutitie F, Maucort-Boulch D, Barnel C, Samson G, Guerin P, Vahanian A, Mewton N, MITRA-FR Investigators. Percutaneous Repair or Medical Treatment for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2297–306. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Arnold SV, Chinnakondepalli KM, Spertus JA, Magnuson EA, Baron SJ, Kar S, Lim DS, Mishell JM, Abraham WT, Lindenfeld JA, Mack MJ, Stone GW, Cohen DJ COAPT Investigators. Health Status after Transcatheter Mitral-Valve Repair in Heart Failure and Secondary Mitral Regurgitation; COAPT Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:2123–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.02.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ben-Shoshan J, Overtchook P, Buithieu J, Mousavi N, Martucci G, Spaziano M, de Varennes, Lachapelle KL, Brophy J, Modine T, Baumbach A, Maisano F, Prendergast B, Tamburino C, Windecker S, Piazza N. Predictors of Outcomes Following Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Mitral Valve Repair. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:1733–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.03.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Maisano F, Caldarola A, Blasio A, De Bonis, La Canna, Alfieri O. Midterm results of edge-to-edge mitral valve repair without annuloplasty. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;126:1987–97. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5223(03)01291-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. De Bonis, Lapenna E, Maisano F, Barili F, La Canna, Buzzatti N, Pappalardo F, Calabrese M, Nisi T, Alfieri O. Long-term results (≤18 years) of the edge-to-edge mitral valve repair without annuloplasty in degenerative mitral regurgitation: implications for the percutaneous approach. Circulation. 2014;130:S19–24. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.007885. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. De Bonis, Lapenna E, Pozzoli A, Giacomini A, Alfieri O. Edge-to-edge surgical mitral valve repair in the era of MitraClip: what if the annuloplasty ring is missed? Curr Opin Cardiol. 2015;30:155–60. doi: 10.1097/HCO.0000000000000148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lancelloti P, Moura L, Pierard LA, Agricola E, Popescu BA, Zamorano JL European Association of Echocardiography recommendations for the assessment of valvular regurgitation. Part 2: mitral and tricuspid regurgitation (native valve disease). Eur J Echocardiogr. 2010;11:307–32. doi: 10.1093/ejechocard/jeq031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Galdersisi M, Cosyns B, Edvardsen T, Cardim N, Delgado V, Di Salvo, Donal E, Sade LE, Ernande L, Garbi M, Grapsa J, Hagendorff A, Kamp O, Magne J, Santoro C, Stefanidis A, Lancellotti P, Popescu B, Habib G 2016-2018 EACVI Scientific Documents Committee. Standardization of adult transthoracic echocardiography reporting in agreement with recent chamber quantification, diastolic function, and heart valve disease recommendations: an expert consensus document of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;18:1301–10. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jex244. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Stone GW, Adams DH, Abraham WT, Kappetein AP, Généreux P, Vranckx P, Mehran R, Kuck KH, Leon MB, Piazza N, Head SJ, Filippatos G, Vahanian AS Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) Clinical trial design principles and endpoint definitions for transcatheter mitral valve repair and replacement: part 2: endpoint definitions: A consensus document from the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:1878–91. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Cheng R, Tat E, Siegel R, Arsanjani R, Hussaini A, Makar M, Mizutani Y, Trento A, Kar S. Mitral annular calcification is not associated with decreased procedural success, durability of repair, or left ventricular remodelling in percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of mitral regurgitation. EuroIntervention. 2016;12:1176–84. doi: 10.4244/EIJV12I9A191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Patzelt T, Rudolph V, Eitel I, Saad M, Bamberg F, Schlensak C, Gawaz M, Boekstegers P, Schreieck J, Seizer P, Langer HF. Elevated mitral valve pressure gradient is predictive of long-term outcomes after percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair in patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) but not in functional MR. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e011366. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.011366. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Neuss M, Schau T, Isotani A, Pilz M, Schöpp M, Butter C. Elevated Mitral Valve Pressure Gradient After Mitraclip Implantation Deteriorates Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Severe Mitral Regurgitation and Severe Heart Failures. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:931–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.12.280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Sorajja P, Gössl M, Babaliaros V, Rizik D, Conradi L, Bae R, Burke RF, Schäfer U, Lisko JC, Riley RD, Guyton R, Dumonteil N, Berthoumieu P, Tchetche D, Blanke P, Cavalcante JL, Sun B. Novel Transcatheter Mitral Valve Prosthesis for Patients With Severe Mitral Annular Calcification. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:1431–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.07.069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Del Val, Ferreira-Neto AN, Wintzer-Wehekind J, Dagenais F, Paradis JM, Bernier M, O'Connor K, Beaudoin J, Freitas-Ferraz AB, Rodés-Cabau J. Early Experience With Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e013332. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.013332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Guerrero M, Urena M, Himbert D, Wang DD, Eleid M, Kodali S, George I, Chakravarty T, Mathur M, Holzhey D, Pershad A, Fang HK, O'Hair D, Jones N, Mahadevan VS, Dumonteil N, Rodés-Cabau J, Piazza N, Ferrari E, Ciaburri D, Nejjari M, DeLago A, Sorajja P, Zahr F, Rajagopal V, Whisenant B, Shah PB, Sinning JM, Witkowski A, Eltchaninoff H, Dvir D, Martin B, Attizzani GF, Gaia D, Nunes NSV, Fassa AA, Kerendi F, Pavlides G, Iyer V, Kaddissi G, Witzke C, Wudel J, Mishkel G, Raybuck B, Wang C, Waksman R, Palacios I, Cribier A, Webb J, Bapat V, Reisman M, Makkar R, Leon M, Rihal C, Vahanian A, O'Neill W, Feldman T. 1-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Mitral Annular Calcification. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:1841–53. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.02.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Muller DWM, Farivar RS, Jansz P, Bae R, Walters D, Clarke A, Grayburn PA, Stoler RC, Dahle G, Rein KA, Shaw M, Scalia GM, Guerrero M, Pearson P, Kapadia S, Gillinov M, Pichard A, Corso P, Popma J, Chuang M, Blanke P, Leipsic J, Sorajja P Tendyne Global Feasibility Trial Investigators. Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement for Patients With Symptomatic Mitral Regurgitation: A Global Feasibility Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:381–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from EuroIntervention are provided here courtesy of Europa Group

RESOURCES