Conservative, surgical, and percutaneous treatment for mitral regurgitation shortly after acute myocardial infarction

Dan Haberman, Rodrigo Estévez-Loureiro, Tomas Benito-Gonzalez, Paolo Denti, Dabit Arzamendi, Marianna Adamo, Xavier Freixa, Luis Nombela-Franco, Pedro Villablanca, Lian Krivoshei, Neil Fam, Konstantinos Spargias, Andrew Czarnecki, Isaac Pascual, Fabien Praz, Doron Sudarsky, Arthur Kerner, Vlasis Ninios, Marco Gennari, Ronen BeeriLeor Perl, Yishay Wasserstrum, Haim Danenberg, Lion Poles, Jacob George, Berenice Caneiro-Queija, Salvatore Scianna, Igal Moaraf, Davide Schiavi, Claudia Scardino, Noé Corpataux, Julio Echarte-Morales, Michael Chrissoheris, Estefanía Fernández-Peregrina, Mattia Di Pasquale, Ander Regueiro, Carlos Vergara-Uzcategui, Andres Iñiguez-Romo, Felipe Fernández-Vázquez, Danny Dvir, Francesco Maisano, Maurizio Taramasso, Mony Shuvy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

38 Scopus citations

Abstract

Aims Severe mitral regurgitation (MR) following acute myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with high mortality rates and has inconclusive recommendations in clinical guidelines. We aimed to report the international experience of patients with secondary MR following acute MI and compare the outcomes of those treated conservatively, surgically, and percutaneously Methods Retrospective international registry of consecutive patients with at least moderate-to-severe MR following MI treated and results in 21 centres in North America, Europe, and the Middle East. The registry included patients treated conservatively and those having surgical mitral valve repair or replacement (SMVR) or percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) using edge-to-edge repair. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. A total of 471 patients were included (43% female, age 73 ± 11 years): 205 underwent interventions, of whom 106 were SMVR and 99 PMVR. Patients who underwent mitral valve intervention were in a worse clinical state (Killip class >_3 in 60% vs. 43%, P < 0.01), but yet had lower in-hospital and 1-year mortality compared with those treated conservatively [11% vs. 27%, P < 0.01 and 16% vs. 35%, P < 0.01; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18–0.46, P < 0.01]. Surgical mitral valve repair or replacement was performed earlier than PMVR [median of 12 days from MI date (interquartile range 5–19) vs. 19 days (10–40), P < 0.01]. The immediate procedural success did not differ between SMVR and PMVR (92% vs. 93%, P = 0.53). However, in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were significantly higher in SMVR than in PMVR (16% vs. 6%, P = 0.03 and 31% vs. 17%, P = 0.04; adjusted HR 3.75, 95% CI 1.55–9.07, P < 0.01). Conclusions Early intervention may mitigate the poor prognosis associated with conservative therapy in patients with post-MI MR. Percutaneous mitral valve repair can serve as an alternative for surgery in reducing MR for high-risk patients.

Original languageAmerican English
Pages (from-to)641-650
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean Heart Journal
Volume43
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - 14 Feb 2022

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Keywords

  • Mitral regurgitation
  • Mitral valve surgery
  • Myocardial infarction
  • Percutaneous edge-to-edge repair
  • Humans
  • Middle Aged
  • Myocardial Infarction/complications
  • Male
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Female
  • Aged
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Mitral Valve Insufficiency/complications

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Conservative, surgical, and percutaneous treatment for mitral regurgitation shortly after acute myocardial infarction'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this