Department of Interventional Cardiology, Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, California.
Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Intermountain Heart Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 29;70(9):1121-1131. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.07.714.
Limited data exist regarding transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) for patients with failed mitral valve replacement and repair.
This study sought to evaluate the outcomes of TMVR in patients with failed mitral bioprosthetic valves (valve-in-valve [ViV]) and annuloplasty rings (valve-in-ring [ViR]).
From the TMVR multicenter registry, procedural and clinical outcomes of mitral ViV and ViR were compared according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria.
A total of 248 patients with mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 8.9 ± 6.8% underwent TMVR. Transseptal access and the balloon-expandable valve were used in 33.1% and 89.9%, respectively. Compared with 176 patients undergoing ViV, 72 patients undergoing ViR had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (45.6 ± 17.4% vs. 55.3 ± 11.1%; p < 0.001). Overall technical and device success rates were acceptable, at 92.3% and 85.5%, respectively. However, compared with the ViV group, the ViR group had lower technical success (83.3% vs. 96.0%; p = 0.001) due to more frequent second valve implantation (11.1% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.008), and lower device success (76.4% vs. 89.2%; p = 0.009) due to more frequent reintervention (16.7% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.03). Mean mitral valve gradients were similar between groups (6.4 ± 2.3 mm Hg vs. 5.8 ± 2.7 mm Hg; p = 0.17), whereas the ViR group had more frequent post-procedural mitral regurgitation moderate or higher (19.4% vs. 6.8%; p = 0.003). Furthermore, the ViR group had more frequent life-threatening bleeding (8.3% vs. 2.3%; p = 0.03), acute kidney injury (11.1% vs. 4.0%; p = 0.03), and subsequent lower procedural success (58.3% vs. 79.5%; p = 0.001). The 1-year all-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in the ViR group compared with the ViV group (28.7% vs. 12.6%; log-rank test, p = 0.01). On multivariable analysis, failed annuloplasty ring was independently associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 2.70; 95% confidence interval: 1.34 to 5.43; p = 0.005).
The TMVR procedure provided acceptable outcomes in high-risk patients with degenerated bioprostheses or failed annuloplasty rings, but mitral ViR was associated with higher rates of procedural complications and mid-term mortality compared with mitral ViV.
关于经导管二尖瓣置换术(TMVR)治疗二尖瓣生物瓣置换和修复失败的患者,相关数据有限。
本研究旨在评估 TMVR 在二尖瓣生物瓣瓣中瓣(ViV)和瓣环成形环瓣中瓣(ViR)患者中的治疗效果。
根据二尖瓣学术研究联合会(Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium)的标准,从 TMVR 多中心注册中心比较了二尖瓣 ViV 和 ViR 的手术和临床结局。
共有 248 例平均胸外科医生协会(Society of Thoracic Surgeons)评分 8.9 ± 6.8%的患者接受了 TMVR。经中隔入路和球囊扩张瓣膜的使用率分别为 33.1%和 89.9%。与 176 例 ViV 患者相比,72 例 ViR 患者的左心室射血分数(left ventricular ejection fraction,LVEF)较低(45.6 ± 17.4%比 55.3 ± 11.1%;p < 0.001)。总的技术和设备成功率分别为 92.3%和 85.5%,均较为可接受。然而,与 ViV 组相比,ViR 组的技术成功率较低(83.3%比 96.0%;p = 0.001),这是由于需要进行更多的二次瓣膜植入(11.1%比 2.8%;p = 0.008);设备成功率也较低(76.4%比 89.2%;p = 0.009),这是由于需要进行更多的再介入治疗(16.7%比 7.4%;p = 0.03)。两组的平均二尖瓣跨瓣压差相似(6.4 ± 2.3 毫米汞柱比 5.8 ± 2.7 毫米汞柱;p = 0.17),但 ViR 组中二尖瓣反流程度为中重度或以上的患者更多(19.4%比 6.8%;p = 0.003)。此外,ViR 组发生危及生命的出血(8.3%比 2.3%;p = 0.03)、急性肾损伤(11.1%比 4.0%;p = 0.03)和随后手术成功率较低(58.3%比 79.5%;p = 0.001)的情况更频繁。与 ViV 组相比,ViR 组 1 年全因死亡率显著更高(28.7%比 12.6%;log-rank 检验,p = 0.01)。多变量分析显示,失败的瓣环成形环与全因死亡率独立相关(风险比:2.70;95%置信区间:1.34 至 5.43;p = 0.005)。
TMVR 术式为退行性生物瓣或瓣环成形环失败的高危患者提供了可接受的治疗效果,但与二尖瓣 ViV 相比,二尖瓣 ViR 与更高的手术并发症和中期死亡率相关。