Reinterventions after transcatheter edge to edge mitral valve repair: Is early clipping warranted?. Issue 12 (29th September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: EL‐Shurafa, Haytham; Arafat, Amr A.; Albabtain, Monirah A.; AlFayez, Latifa A.; AlOtaiby, Mohammad; Algarni, Khaled D.; Pragliola, Claudio
• Is Part Of: Journal of cardiac surgery. Volume 35:Issue 12(2020)
• Page Start: 3362
• Page End: 3367
• Publication Date: 2020-09-29
• Subjects: MitraClip -- mitral reclipping -- reintervention -- transcatheter edge to edge repair; Heart -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.412005
• DOI: 10.1111/jocs.15077
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0886-0440

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Reintervention after transcatheter edge to edge repair using MitraClip is still challenging. We aimed to report our experience in reinterventions after MitraClip procedures and describe the outcomes. Methods: From 2012 to 2020, 167 patients had a transcatheter edge to edge repair; 10 of them needed reinterventions. At the time of the first MitraClip, the median EuroSCORE was 4.29 (2.62–7.52), and the ejection fraction was 30 (20–40)%. Results: Emergency mitral valve replacement (MVR) was performed in two patients, elective MVR in three, cardiac transplantation in two, and repeat clipping in threepatients. The median time from MitraClip to the reintervention was 4.5 (2–13) months. One patient required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support after elective MVR. Repeat clipping failed to control mitral regurgitation grade in all patients. Clip detachment was reported in five patients (50%). The median follow‐up after the reintervention was 19.5 (9–75) months, and mortality occurred in two patients who had repeat clipping (20%). Conclusions: MVR after MitraClip is feasible with low morbidity and mortality. Repeat mitral valve clipping had a high failure rate. Mitral repair was not feasible in all patients in our series, and the use of MitraClip to delay surgical interventions may not be feasible if mitral repair is an option.