Surgical revision after percutaneous mitral valve repair by edge‐to‐edge device in high‐risk patients. Issue 12 (16th September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Alozie, Anthony; Westphal, Bernd; Caglayan, Evren; Yuecel, Seyrani; Schubert, Roland; Aydin, Ali; Kletzin, Frank; Öner, Alper; Dohmen, Pascal M.; Bushnaq, Hasan
• Is Part Of: Journal of cardiac surgery. Volume 35:Issue 12(2020)
• Page Start: 3266
• Page End: 3275
• Publication Date: 2020-09-16
• Subjects: cardiovascular pathology -- valve repair/replacement; Heart -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.412005
• DOI: 10.1111/jocs.15000
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0886-0440

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Patients scheduled for surgery after unsuccessful MitraClip® intervention present increasingly with multiple comorbidities, and they are often referred to the heart team to suggest the most appropriate intervention. The publication of successful results of initial patient cohorts treated with the MitraClip device has resulted in recruitment of more seriously ill patients, who otherwise would have been denied catheter‐based/surgical treatment. There has been increasingly reports on conventional surgery after failed mitral valve repair with the MitraClip device. However, data on such procedures remain scarce and mostly focused on individual case studies. The inevitable increase in use of MitraClip, however, will raise the number of patients in need of surgery post MitraClip, making it imperative for surgeons to understand challenges and outcome data related with surgery in this patient cohort. We present our long‐term institutional experience with surgery after MitraClip intervention in highest risk patients. Methods: Eighteen patients underwent surgery of the mitral valve at our Institution between January 2015 and June 2020. These patients developed recurrent mitral regurgitation grade more than 2° at various intervals after MitraClip. Mitral valve repair was performed where possible and gross examination Valve/MitraClip were intra‐operatively documented. Implanted MitraClip devices were analyzed histopathologically to evaluate the healing process and rule out inflammation. Regular patient follow‐up was performed. Results: Mean patient age was 74 (±9 years) and MitraClip implantation was performed at various tertiary institutions. Sixteen out of eighteen (16/18) patients received mitral valve replacement, whereas the remaining two patients received mitral valve repair and extracorporal membrane oxygenation, respectively. Four patients died of sepsis and intractable multi organ failure in‐hospital. The remaining patients were discharged alive out of hospital to different rehabilitation centers. Follow‐up was complete in all patients. Conclusions: Surgery is demanding when patients require surgery for persistent or recurrent mitral regurgitation after MitraClip therapy and can be successfully implemented as a possible therapy option for selective cases as an interdisciplinary approach despite calculated high perioperative mortality risk. These patients should not be denied surgery outright.