Percutaneous treatment of mitral regurgitation in patients with impaired ventricular function: Impact of intracardiac electronic devices (from the German Transcatheter Mitral Valve Interventions Registry)
Standard
Percutaneous treatment of mitral regurgitation in patients with impaired ventricular function: Impact of intracardiac electronic devices (from the German Transcatheter Mitral Valve Interventions Registry). / D'Ancona, Giuseppe; Ince, Hüseyin; Schillinger, Wolfgang; Senges, Jochen; Ouarrak, Taoufik; Butter, Christian; Seifert, Martin; Schau, Thomas; Lubos, Edith; Boekstegers, Peter; von Bardeleben, Ralph Stephan; Safak, Erdal.
In: CATHETER CARDIO INTE, Vol. 94, No. 5, 01.11.2019, p. 755-763.Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Percutaneous treatment of mitral regurgitation in patients with impaired ventricular function: Impact of intracardiac electronic devices (from the German Transcatheter Mitral Valve Interventions Registry)
AU - D'Ancona, Giuseppe
AU - Ince, Hüseyin
AU - Schillinger, Wolfgang
AU - Senges, Jochen
AU - Ouarrak, Taoufik
AU - Butter, Christian
AU - Seifert, Martin
AU - Schau, Thomas
AU - Lubos, Edith
AU - Boekstegers, Peter
AU - von Bardeleben, Ralph Stephan
AU - Safak, Erdal
N1 - © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
PY - 2019/11/1
Y1 - 2019/11/1
N2 - OBJECTIVES: To identify prevalence/impact of previous implantation of cardiac electronic devices (CEDs), such as cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization (CRT), in a group of MitraClip (MC) candidates with LVEF < 30%.BACKGROUND: MC therapy is nowadays often considered in patients with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF%) and symptomatic severe secondary MR.METHODS: Data from the German Transcatheter Mitral Valve Interventions (TRAMIs) registry were analyzed. Patients with pre-procedural LVEF <30% were selected and divided according to the presence of CEDs. Pre-procedural, peri-procedural, and 1-year follow-up data were analyzed.RESULTS: Out of 689 MC patients, 235 had LVEF<30%. Of these, 23% (54/235) had CRT, 36.6% (86/235) ICD, and 40.4% (95/235) had no CEDs. Risk profile was similar (median STS score CRT 6.0 (IQR: 3.0-12.0); ICD 7.0 (IQR: 4.0-12.0); No-CED 6.5 (IQR: 2.0-10.0); p = 0.8). No procedural mortality was observed and hospital mortality was 5.6% in CRT, 2.3% in ICD, and 3.2% in No-CED (p = 0.5). At discharge, severe MV regurgitation was reported in 3.8% of CRT, 3.7% of ICD, and 1.1% of No-CED (p = 0.9). One year estimated survival (CRT 75.7%; ICD 75.8%; No-CED 78%; p = 0.94) and freedom from MACCE (CRT 73.6%; ICD 75.8%; No-CED 74.5%; p = 0.88) were similar.CONCLUSIONS: A third of patients have been already submitted to CEDs implantation at time of referral for MC therapy and 40% of those with severely depressed LVEF% arrive to MC therapy before ICD/CRT implantation. The presence of CED does not impair acute MC therapy success. Mid-term follow-up outcomes are similar in patients with and without CEDs.
AB - OBJECTIVES: To identify prevalence/impact of previous implantation of cardiac electronic devices (CEDs), such as cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization (CRT), in a group of MitraClip (MC) candidates with LVEF < 30%.BACKGROUND: MC therapy is nowadays often considered in patients with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF%) and symptomatic severe secondary MR.METHODS: Data from the German Transcatheter Mitral Valve Interventions (TRAMIs) registry were analyzed. Patients with pre-procedural LVEF <30% were selected and divided according to the presence of CEDs. Pre-procedural, peri-procedural, and 1-year follow-up data were analyzed.RESULTS: Out of 689 MC patients, 235 had LVEF<30%. Of these, 23% (54/235) had CRT, 36.6% (86/235) ICD, and 40.4% (95/235) had no CEDs. Risk profile was similar (median STS score CRT 6.0 (IQR: 3.0-12.0); ICD 7.0 (IQR: 4.0-12.0); No-CED 6.5 (IQR: 2.0-10.0); p = 0.8). No procedural mortality was observed and hospital mortality was 5.6% in CRT, 2.3% in ICD, and 3.2% in No-CED (p = 0.5). At discharge, severe MV regurgitation was reported in 3.8% of CRT, 3.7% of ICD, and 1.1% of No-CED (p = 0.9). One year estimated survival (CRT 75.7%; ICD 75.8%; No-CED 78%; p = 0.94) and freedom from MACCE (CRT 73.6%; ICD 75.8%; No-CED 74.5%; p = 0.88) were similar.CONCLUSIONS: A third of patients have been already submitted to CEDs implantation at time of referral for MC therapy and 40% of those with severely depressed LVEF% arrive to MC therapy before ICD/CRT implantation. The presence of CED does not impair acute MC therapy success. Mid-term follow-up outcomes are similar in patients with and without CEDs.
KW - Aged
KW - Aged, 80 and over
KW - Cardiac Catheterization/adverse effects
KW - Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy/adverse effects
KW - Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices
KW - Defibrillators, Implantable
KW - Electric Countershock/adverse effects
KW - Female
KW - Germany
KW - Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Mitral Valve/diagnostic imaging
KW - Mitral Valve Insufficiency/diagnostic imaging
KW - Recovery of Function
KW - Registries
KW - Retrospective Studies
KW - Risk Factors
KW - Stroke Volume
KW - Time Factors
KW - Treatment Outcome
KW - Ventricular Dysfunction, Left/diagnostic imaging
KW - Ventricular Function, Left
U2 - 10.1002/ccd.28127
DO - 10.1002/ccd.28127
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 30790414
VL - 94
SP - 755
EP - 763
JO - CATHETER CARDIO INTE
JF - CATHETER CARDIO INTE
SN - 1522-1946
IS - 5
ER -
