2017 Buyer’s Guide

This buyer’s guide offers a searchable, comprehensive listing of the FDA-approved interventional devices available in the United States.

TMVR Studied for Degenerated Bioprosthetic Valves and Failed Annuloplasty Rings

 

August 21, 2017—Findings from an evaluation of the outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) in patients with failed mitral bioprosthetic valves (valve-in-valve, ViV) and annuloplasty rings (valve-in-ring, ViR) were published by Sung-Han Yoon, MD, et al in Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC; 2017;70:1121–1131).

The investigators used data from the TMVR multicenter registry to compare the procedural and clinical outcomes of mitral ViV and ViR according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria.

As summarized in JACC, a total of 248 patients with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 8.9 ± 6.8% underwent TMVR. Transseptal access and a balloon-expandable valve were used in 33.1% and 89.9% of patients, respectively. Seventy-two patients undergoing ViR had lower left ventricular ejection fraction compared with 176 patients undergoing ViV (45.6 ± 17.4% vs 55.3 ± 11.1%; P < .001).

Overall technical and device success rates were acceptable, at 92.3% and 85.5%, respectively. However, the ViR group had lower technical success compared with the ViV group (83.3% vs 96%; P = .001) because of more frequent second valve implantation (11.1% vs 2.8%; P = .008), and lower device success (76.4% vs 89.2%; P = .009) because of more frequent reintervention (16.7% vs 7.4%; P = .03).

The investigators reported that mean mitral valve gradients were similar between groups (6.4 ± 2.3 mm Hg vs 5.8 ± 2.7 mm Hg; P = .17), whereas the ViR group had more frequent postprocedural moderate-or-higher mitral regurgitation (19.4% vs 6.8%; P = .003).

Furthermore, the ViR group had more frequent life-threatening bleeding (8.3% vs 2.3%; P = .03), acute kidney injury (11.1% vs 4%; P = .03), and subsequent lower procedural success (58.3% vs 79.5%; P = .001) than compared with the ViV group.

The 1-year, all-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in the ViR group compared with the ViV group (28.7% vs 12.6%; log-rank test; P = .01). On multivariable analysis, failed annuloplasty ring was independently associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 2.7; 95% confidence interval: 1.34–5.43; P = .005).

The TMVR procedure provided acceptable outcomes in high-risk patients with degenerated bioprostheses or failed annuloplasty rings, but mitral ViR was associated with higher rates of procedural complications and midterm mortality compared with mitral ViV, concluded the investigators in JACC.

 

Contact Info

For advertising rates and opportunities, contact:
Craig McChesney
484-581-1816
cmcchesney@bmctoday.com

Stephen Hoerst
484-581-1817
shoerst@bmctoday.com

Charles Philip
484-581-1873
cphillip@bmctoday.com

About Cardiac Interventions Today

Cardiac Interventions Today (ISSN 2572-5955 print and ISSN 2572-5963 online) is a publication dedicated to providing comprehensive coverage of the latest developments in technology, techniques, clinical studies, and regulatory and reimbursement issues in the field of coronary and cardiac interventions. Cardiac Interventions Today premiered in March 2007 and each edition contains a variety of topics in a flexible format, including articles covering various perspectives on current clinical topics, in-depth interviews with expert physicians, overviews of available technologies, industry news, and insights into the issues affecting today's interventional cardiology practices.