MitraClip implantation in real-world: clinical relevance of different patterns of left ventricular remodeling

Abstract

Objective: The role of left ventricular (LV) volumes and ejection fraction (EF) in the selection of patients for the MitraClip procedure remains matter of debate. The goal of this study is to assess the pattern of LV remodeling and its clinical implications after MitraClip procedures, and to evaluate the role of LV ejection fraction (EF) in patient selection. Methods: Complete echocardiography was performed before, at discharge, 1,6, and 12-months in 45 patients treated with MitraClip for severe mitral regurgitation (MR) [age 78.2 ± 8.3 yrs, NYHA 3.74 ± 0.44, EF 36.5 ± 12.8%]. From baseline to 6-month, reverse and adverse LV-R were defined as a ≥15% decrease in LV end-systolic volume and a ≥10% increase in LV end-systolic volume, respectively. Results: At 6-month, sustained reduction of MR ≤ 2 was observed in all patients, but two; reverse, adverse, and no LV-R occurred in 51% (N = 23), 18% (N = 8), and 31% (N = 14) of patients, respectively. Baseline LV end-diastolic volume was an independent predictor of reverse LV-R [P = 0.004], whereas EF was not. During follow-up (17.5 ± 9.3 months) period, 50% of adverse/no LV-R patients were free of the composite endpoint (mortality and hospitalization for heart failure) compared to 95.7% of reverse LV-R patients (P = 0.006). In Cox analysis, adverse LV-R and adverse/no LV-R were associated with composite endpoint with adjusted hazard ratios of 5.6 (95% CI 1.65-19.00) and 10.08 (95% CI 1.29–78.6), respectively. Conclusion: After MitraClip implantation, sustained adverse or no LV-R occurred in one-in-two patients and was associated with poor prognosis. Large LV volumes may help us to avoid the futility of the procedure.

Keywords

• MitraClip
• left ventricular remodeling
• mitral valve regurgitation