Impact of procedural success on clinical outcome after MitraClip: Results from the MITRA-FR trial - 02/12/22
, David Attias b, Nicolas Piriou c, Bernard Iung d, e, Xavier Armoiry f, g, Jean-Noël Trochu c, h, Erwan Donal i, j, Gilbert Habib k, l, Bertrand Cormier m, Patrice Guerin n, Thierry Lefèvre m, Delphine Maucort-Boulch o, p, Florent Boutitie o, p, Alec Vahanian d, Benjamin Riche o, p, Jean-Francois Obadia q, ⁎
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
Article gratuit.
Connectez-vous pour en bénéficier!
Highlights |
• | Different procedural success rates may explain divergent MITRA-FR and COAPT results. |
• | Optimal procedural result was defined as residual MR grade ≤ 1 + at discharge. |
• | Controls received guideline-directed medical therapy only. |
• | Outcomes: 24-month all-cause death or unplanned heart failure hospitalization. |
• | Patients with an optimal procedural result and controls had similar outcomes. |
• | Our results do not support this hypothesis. |
Abstract |
Background |
Differences in procedural success rates have been proposed to explain the divergent results between the MITRA-FR trial (Percutaneous Repair with the MitraClip Device for Severe Functional/Secondary Mitral Regurgitation) and the COAPT trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation).
Aim |
To examine whether MITRA-FR patients who had successful clip implantation achieved a better outcome than the control group.
Methods |
Based on the per protocol population of MITRA-FR, we compared the outcome in 71 patients in whom optimal clip implantation was achieved (group 1: mitral regurgitation grade ≤ 1 + at discharge) with that in 23 patients with non-optimal clip implantation (group 2: mitral regurgitation grade ≥ 2 + at discharge) and that in 137 patients in the control group (group 3). The primary endpoint was all-cause death or unplanned hospitalization for heart failure at 24 months.
Results |
Event-free survival was not different across the groups (42±6% in group 1, 30±10% in group 2 and 31±4% in group 3; log-rank P=0.32). In multivariable analyses, after adjustment for age, sex, rhythm, aetiology, left ventricular ejection fraction and mitral regurgitation severity, group was not associated with variations in outcome: using Group 3 as reference, hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.58–1.27 (P=0.43) in group 1; and hazard ratio 0.98 95% confidence interval 0.54–1.76 (P=0.94) in group 2.
Conclusions |
The clinical outcome of patients in whom optimal procedural result was achieved at discharge was not different compared with the control group. Our results do not support the hypothesis that the differences in rates of residual mitral regurgitation at discharge between MITRA-FR and COAPT explain the divergent results between the two trials.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Keywords : Mitral regurgitation, Transcatheter mitral valve therapy, Outcomes
Abbreviations : CI, COAPT, ERO, HR, LV, MR, MITRA-FR, TMVr
Plan
| ☆ | Tweet: The present MITRA-FR sub-study does not support the hypothesis that the differences in rates of residual mitral regurgitation at discharge between MITRA-FR and COAPT explain the divergent results between the two trials. |
Vol 115 - N° 11
P. 545-551 - novembre 2022 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- To stop adverse evolution of atherosclerotic plaque burden: An appropriate objective for coronary artery disease therapy?
- Gilles Barone-Rochette
- Performance of stent thrombosis and bleeding risk scores in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to acute coronary syndromes
- Gabriel Seret, Vincent Pham, Driss Laghlam, Marine Diefenbronn, Thibaud Brunet, Olivier Varenne, Florence Dumas, Alain Cariou, Fabien Picard
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.