National outcomes of urgent vs. non-urgent percutaneous edge-to-edge transcatheter mitral valve repair.

Abstract

BackgroundThe current data regarding outcomes of transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair with the MitraClip system in the urgent setting has not been well described. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the outcomes of urgent MitraClip procedures compared with non-urgent ones.MethodThe Nationwide Inpatient Sample database years 2011–2017 was used to identify hospitalizations for MitraClip in the urgent setting. Propensity score matching was used to compare the patients who underwent MitraClip in urgent versus non-urgent settings.ResultsA total of 15,993 patients underwent the MitraClip procedures from 2011 to 2017. 3,929 (24.6%) were urgent and 12,064 (75.4%) were non-urgent. Patients in the urgent group were younger (75.08 vs 77.46) and more likely to be African American (p < 0.001). The urgent group had a higher burden of comorbidities such as diabetes, atrial fibrillation, renal failure and pulmonary circulatory disorders. Using multivariable logistic regression, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality between urgent and non-urgent groups (4.2% vs 1.8%, OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.41–1.00, p = 0.051). Using propensity score matching, there was no statistically significant difference in the in-hospital mortality between urgent and non-urgent groups (4.4% vs 2.8%, OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 0.71–3.63, p = 0.254). The risks of acute kidney injury and discharge to an outside facility were higher in the urgent group (p < 0.001).ConclusionNo significant in-hospital mortality for patients who underwent urgent versus non-urgent MitraClip procedures. Therefore, urgent MitraClip procedure might be an acceptable option when indicated.