Initial Experience of Percutaneous Treatment of Mitral Regurgitation With MitraClip® Therapy in Spain

Carrasco-Chinchilla, Fernando; Arzamendi, Dabit; Romero, Miguel; Carlos, Federico Gimeno de; Alonso‐Briales, Juan H.; Li, Chi-Hion; Mesa, Maria Dolores; Arnold, Román; Frutos, Ana Serrador; Pan, Manuel; Roig, Eulàlia; Rodríguez–Bailón, Isabel; Galán, Luis de la Fuente; Serra, Antonio; Lezo, José Suárez de

doi:10.1016/j.rec.2014.02.019

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall results for the main clinical outcomes are in agreement with previous published series and registries [3][4][5][6][7]. In the European Sentinel Registry [6], procedural success was achieved in 95% of cases, whereas in-hospital and 1 year mortality were 2.9% and 15.3%, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…With more than 200,000 implants worldwide, the therapy seems to be settling down as one of the available tools for mitral regurgitation (MR) treatment in several reference centers. Initial data from the randomized EVEREST II trial [1,2] and other international registries showed consistent and promising results with the use of Mitraclip for functional (FMR) and degenerative MR (DMR) patients [3][4][5][6][7]. However, recent data from the MITRA-FR [8] and COAPT trials [9], two randomized trials comparing Mitraclip versus optimal medical treatment in FMR patients, showed opposite results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair: Outcome Improvement with Operator Experience and a Second-Generation Device

Freixa

Estévez‐Loureiro

Carrasco-Chinchilla

et al. 2021

JCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aim: Recent randomized data comparing percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) versus optimal medical treatment in patients with functional MR (FMR) seemed to highlight the importance of the learning curve not only for procedural outcomes but also for patient selection. The aim of the study was to compare a contemporary series of patients undergoing PMVR using a second-generation Mitraclip device (Mitraclip NT) with previous cohorts treated with a first-generation system. Methods: This multicenter study collected individual data from 18 centers between 2012 and 2017. The cohort was divided into three groups according to the use of the first-generation Mitraclip during the first (control-1) or second half (control-2) or the Mitraclip NT system. Results: A total of 545 consecutive patients were included in the study. Among all, 182 (33.3%), 183 (33.3%), and 180 (33.3%) patients underwent mitral repair in the control-1, control-2, and NT cohorts, respectively. Procedural success was achieved in 93.3% of patients without differences between groups. Major adverse events did not statistically differ among groups, but there was a higher rate of pericardial effusion in the control-1 group (4.3%, 0.6%, and 2.6%, respectively; p = 0.025). The composite endpoint of death, surgery, and admission for congestive heart failure (CHF) at 12 months was lower in the NT group (23.5% in control-1, 22.5% in control-2, and 8.3% in the NT group; p = 0.032). Conclusions: The present paper shows that contemporary clinical outcomes of patients undergoing PMVR with the Mitraclip system have improved over time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%