Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of central versus noncentral percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of degenerative mitral regurgitation.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the clinical and echocardiographic results of MitraClip implantation in noncentral degenerative mitral regurgitation (dMR) compared with central dMR.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether the use of MitraClip therapy in noncentral dMR is as safe and effective as in central dMR.

METHODS: We analyzed a multicenter registry of 173 patients treated with the MitraClip and compared results of central and noncentral dMR.

RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients (age 79.2 ± 8.0 years, 58.2% men) had dMR. Forty-nine patients (62%) had central dMR, with the remainder classified as noncentral dMR (n = 30, 38%). Patients with noncentral dMR had a wider pre-procedural vena contracta (8.5 ± 2.0 mm vs. 6.9 ± 2.2 mm, p = 0.039) and higher systolic pulmonary pressure (57.9 ± 18.0 vs. 47.3 ± 13.0 mm Hg, p = 0.019). Procedural success was the same in both groups (95.5% central vs. 96.7% noncentral, p = 0.866). Post-procedural MR and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class at 1 month (MR ≤2, 96.0% vs. 96.6%, p = 0.866, and NYHA functional class ≤II, 81.6% vs. 90.0%, p = 0.335) and 6 months (95.2% central vs. 91.7% noncentral, p = 0.679; and NYHA functional class >II, 21.1% vs. 0%, p = 0.128) did not differ between groups. There were also no differences in serious post-procedural adverse events: partial clip detachment (central n = 1 [2.0%] vs. noncentral n = 1 [3.3%], p = 1.000), death (5.4% central vs. 13.0% noncentral, p = 0.298), or heart failure admission (10.8% central vs. 8.7% noncentral, p = 0.791).

CONCLUSIONS: In experienced centers, MitraClip treatment can be performed safely and effectively in both central and noncentral dMR.