An updated meta-analysis of MitraClip versus surgery for mitral regurgitation.

Abstract

Although studies demonstrate its feasibility, there is ongoing debate on the short and long-term outcomes of MitraClip versus surgical repair or mitral valve replacement (MVR). The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety, morbidity, mortality and long-term function following MitraClip compared to MVR. Articles were searched in PubMed and Cochrane databases for studies comparing outcomes of MitraClip and surgery on December 1, 2019. Eligible prospective, retrospective, randomized and non-randomized studies were reviewed. A total of nine studies (n=1,873, MitraClip =533, MVR =644) were eligible for review. At baseline, MitraClip patients had more comorbidities than MVR patients, including myocardial infarction (P<0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P=0.022) and chronic kidney disease (P<0.001). MitraClip was associated with shorter length of stay (-3.86 days; 95% CI, -4.73 to -2.99; P<0.01) with a similar safety profile. Residual moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation was more frequent in MitraClip at discharge (OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.39-5.69; P<0.01) and at five years (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.54-3.94; P<0.01), and there was a higher need for reoperation on the MitraClip group at latest follow-up (OR, 5.28; 95% CI, 3.43-8.11; P<0.01). The overall mortality was comparable between the two groups (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 0.98-4.29; P=0.06) for a mean follow-up of 4.8 years. Compared to surgery, MitraClip demonstrates a similar safety profile and shorter length of stay in high-risk patients, at the expense of increased residual mitral regurgitation and higher reoperation rate. Despite this, long term mortality appears comparable between the two techniques, suggesting that a patient-tailored approach will lead to optimal results.