Emergent transcatheter mitral valve implantation: Early and mid-term outcomes

Abstract

BackgroundTranscatheter mitral valve implantation (TMVI) may be attractive to treat high-risk patients with mitral bioprosthesis or annuloplasty ring failure or severe mitral annular calcification. AimTo report the outcomes of patients after valve-in-valve/ring/mitral annular calcification TMVI using balloon expandable transcatheter aortic valves, according to the degree of urgency of the procedure. MethodsAll patients who underwent TMVI in our centre from 2010 to 2021 were classified into three groups: elective, urgent or emergent/salvage TMVI. ResultsA total of 157 patients were included: 129 (82.2%) had elective, 21 (13.4%) urgent and 7 (4.4%) had emergent/salvage TMVI. Patients with emergent/salvage TMVI had a higher EuroSCORE II: elective, 7.3%; urgent, 9.7%; emergent/salvage, 54.5% (P<0.0001). The indication for TMVI was bioprosthesis failure in all of the emergent/salvage group, in 13 of the urgent group (61.9%) and in 62 of the elective group (48.1%). Overall, the technical success rate of TMVI was 86%, and was similar in the three groups (elective, 86.1%; urgent, 95.2%; emergent/salvage, 71.4%). The cumulative survival rate at 2-year follow-up was lower in the emergent/salvage group than in the elective or urgent group (42.9% vs 71.2% for the elective group; 76.2% for the urgent group; log-rank test, P=0.012). The excess mortality in the emergent/salvage group occurred during the first month postprocedure. Thereafter, the 30-day landmark analysis did not show any more statistical difference between the three groups (log-rank test, P=0.94). ConclusionsEmergent/salvage TMVI was associated with high early mortality, but 1-month survivors had similar outcomes to patients with elective/urgent TMVI. The degree of urgency of the procedure should not prevent TMVI in high-risk patients.