Abstract

BackgroundEchocardiography (echo) is widely used to guide therapeutic decision-making for patients being considered for MitraClip. Relative utility of two- (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) echo predictors of MitraClip response, and impact of MitraClip on mitral annular geometry, are uncertain.MethodsThe study population comprised patients with advanced (> moderate) MR undergoing MitraClip. Mitral annular geometry was quantified on pre-procedural 2D transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and intra-procedural 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE); 3D TEE was used to measure MitraClip induced changes in annular geometry. Optimal MitraClip response was defined as ≤mild MR on follow-up (mean 2.7 ± 2.5 months) post-procedure TTE.ResultsEighty patients with advanced MR underwent MitraClip; 41% had optimal response (≤mild MR). Responders had smaller pre-procedural global left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic size and mitral annular diameter on 2D TTE (both p ≤ 0.01), paralleling smaller annular area and circumference on 3D TEE (both p = 0.001). Mitral annular size yielded good diagnostic performance for optimal MitraClip response (AUC 0.72, p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, sub-optimal MitraClip response was independently associated with larger pre-procedural mitral annular area on 3D TEE (OR 1.93 per cm2/m2 [CI 1.19–3.13], p = 0.007) and global LV end-diastolic volume on 2D TTE (OR 1.29 per 10 ml/m2 [CI 1.02–1.63], p = 0.03). Substitution of 2D TTE derived mitral annular diameter for 3D TEE data demonstrated a lesser association between pre-procedural annular size (OR 5.36 per cm/m2 [CI 0.95–30.19], p = 0.06) and sub-optimal MitraClip response. Matched pre- and post-procedural TEE analyses demonstrated MitraClip to acutely decrease mitral annular area and circumference (all p < 0.001) as well as mitral tenting height, area, and volume (all p < 0.05): Magnitude of MitraClip induced reductions in mitral annular circumference on intra-procedural 3D TEE was greater among patients with, compared to those without, sub-optimal MitraClip response (>mild MR) on followup TTE (p = 0.017); greater magnitude of device-induced annular reduction remained associated with sub-optimal MitraClip response even when normalized for pre-procedure annular circumference (p = 0.028).ConclusionsMitraClip alters mitral annular geometry as quantified by intra-procedural 3D TEE. Pre-procedural mitral annular dilation and magnitude of device-induced reduction in mitral annular size on 3D TEE are each associated with sub-optimal therapeutic response to MitraClip.

Highlights

  • Echocardiography is widely used to guide therapeutic decision-making for patients being considered for MitraClip

  • Pre-procedural mitral annular dilation and magnitude of device-induced reduction in mitral annular size on 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) are each associated with sub-optimal therapeutic response to MitraClip

  • Follow-up transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) (2.7 ± 2.5 months) was performed to assess short term procedural response based on mitral regurgitation (MR): Whereas most (91%) patients had some improvement in MR (≥1 grade MR reduction), less than half (41%) had optimal MitraClip response (≤mild MR)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Echocardiography (echo) is widely used to guide therapeutic decision-making for patients being considered for MitraClip. Prior echo studies by our group and others have shown increased left ventricular (LV) size to augment risk for recurrent MR after MitraClip implantation [5], supporting the notion that remodeling indices beyond mitral valve anatomy impact therapeutic response. Consistent with this, computational modeling studies have shown MitraClip to augment leaflet stress adjacent to the device and to affect broader aspects of the mitral apparatus - including decreased annular size and increased stretch (displacement) of periannular LV myocardium [8]. It remains unclear whether clinical application of MitraClip produces in vivo alterations in mitral annular geometry, and how such remodeling impacts patient outcomes

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call