Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement versus Medical Therapy for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison

Sebastian Ludwig, Lenard Conradi, David J Cohen, Augustin Coisne, Andrea Scotti, William T Abraham, Walid Ben Ali, Zhipeng Zhou, Yanru Li, Saibal Kar, Alison Duncan, D Scott Lim, Marianna Adamo, Björn Redfors, David W M Muller, John G Webb, Anna Sonia Petronio, Hendrik Ruge, Georg Nickenig, Lars SondergaardMatti Adam, Damiano Regazzoli, Andrea Garatti, Tobias Schmidt, Martin Andreas, Gry Dahle, Thomas Walther, Joerg Kempfert, Gilbert Hl Tang, Simon R Redwood, Maurizio Taramasso, Fabien Praz, Neil P Fam, Nicolas Dumonteil, Jean-François Obadia, Ralph Stephan von Bardeleben, Tanja Katharina Rudolph, Michael J Reardon, Marco Metra, Paolo Denti, Michael J Mack, Jörg Hausleiter, Federico M Asch, Azeem Latib, JoAnn Lindenfeld, Thomas Modine, Gregg W Stone, Juan F Granada*, CHOICE-MI and the COAPT Trial Investigators

*Corresponding author for this work

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is an emerging therapeutic alternative for patients with secondary mitral regurgitation (MR). Outcomes of TMVR versus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) have not been investigated for this population. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of patients with secondary MR undergoing TMVR versus GDMT alone.

METHODS: The CHOICE-MI registry (Choice of Optimal Transcatheter Treatment for Mitral Insufficiency) included patients with MR undergoing TMVR using dedicated devices. Patients with MR pathogeneses other than secondary MR were excluded. Patients treated with GDMT alone were derived from the control arm of the COAPT trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation). We compared outcomes between the TMVR and GDMT groups, using propensity score matching to adjust for baseline differences.

RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 97 patient pairs undergoing TMVR (72.9±8.7 years; 60.8% men; transapical access, 91.8%) versus GDMT (73.1±11.0 years; 59.8% men) were compared. At 1 and 2 years, residual MR was ≤1+ in all patients of the TMVR group compared with 6.9% and 7.7%, respectively, in those receiving GDMT alone (both P<0.001). The 2-year rate of heart failure hospitalization was significantly lower in the TMVR group (32.8% versus 54.4%; hazard ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.35-0.99]; P=0.04). Among survivors, a higher proportion of patients were in the New York Heart Association functional class I or II in the TMVR group at 1 year (78.2% versus 59.7%; P=0.03) and at 2 years (77.8% versus 53.2%; P=0.09). Two-year mortality was similar in the 2 groups (TMVR versus GDMT, 36.8% versus 40.8%; hazard ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.62-1.64]; P=0.98).

CONCLUSIONS: In this observational comparison, over 2-year follow-up, TMVR using mostly transapical devices in patients with secondary MR was associated with significant reduction of MR, symptomatic improvement, less frequent hospitalizations for heart failure, and similar mortality compared with GDMT.

REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04688190 (CHOICE-MI) and NCT01626079 (COAPT).

Original languageEnglish
JournalCirculation. Cardiovascular interventions
Volume16
Issue number6
Pages (from-to)e013045
ISSN1941-7640
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2023

Keywords

  • Cardiac Catheterization/adverse effects
  • Female
  • Heart Failure/etiology
  • Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Mitral Valve Insufficiency/diagnostic imaging
  • Mitral Valve/diagnostic imaging
  • Propensity Score
  • Treatment Outcome

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement versus Medical Therapy for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this