Pulmonary artery pressure response to percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty: Associated factors and clinical implications

Influence of Right Atrial Pressure on the Prognosis of Patients with Rheumatic Mitral Stenosis Undergoing Percutaneous Mitral Balloon Valvuloplasty

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) often complicates mitral stenosis (MS). The prognostic impact of pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) in MS patients remains unclear. Previous study has demonstrated the prognostic impact of right atrial pressure (RAP) in patients with primary PH. We aim to determine the prognostic impact of PVR and RAP in patients with rheumatic MS undergoing percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty (PMBV).

METHODS

A total of 58 patients with symptomatic severe rheumatic MS who underwent PMBV between 2016 and 2020 were included. Patients were divided into two groups: PVR ≤ 2WU (N = 26) and PVR > 2WU (N = 32). The composite endpoint included death, reintervention or persistent NYHA functional class III-IV during follow-up.

RESULTS

The median age was 50 (42-60) years, with 82.8% being female. Median pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) was 42 (35-50.5) mmHg. Patients with PVR ≤ 2WU had lower PASP on both echocardiogram and catheterization. The PMBV success rate was 75.9%. Multivariate analysis, adjusted for PVR, showed RAP as the only independent predictor of the composite endpoint (HR:1.507, 95% CI:1.015-2.237, p = 0.042). The optimal RAP cutoff was 9.5 mmHg (HR:3.481, 95% CI:1.041-11.641; p = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

RAP was an independent predictor of adverse outcomes in patients with rheumatic MS undergoing PMBV, while PVR did not show prognostic significance. These findings suggest that the prognostic value of PVR may be lower than expected.

The 40th Anniversary of Percutaneous Balloon Valvuloplasty for Mitral Stenosis: Current Status

Percutaneous balloon mitral valvuloplasty (PBMV), once the most complex of percutaneous cardiac procedures and essentially the first adult structural heart intervention, set the stage for a host of new technologies. Randomized studies comparing PBMV to surgery were the first to provide a high-level evidence base in structural heart. The devices used have changed little in 40 years, but the advent of improved imaging and the expertise gained in interventional cardiology has provided some additional procedural safety. However, with the decline in rheumatic heart disease, PBMV is being performed in fewer patients in industrialized nations; in turn, these patients have more comorbidities, less favorable anatomy, and thus a higher rate of procedure-related complications. There remain relatively few experienced operators, and the procedure is distinct enough from the rest of the structural heart intervention world that it has its own steep learning curve. This article reviews the use of PBMV in a variety of clinical settings, the influence of anatomic and physiologic factors on outcomes, the changes in the guidelines, and alternative approaches. PBMV remains the procedure of choice in patients with mitral stenosis with ideal anatomy and a useful tool in patients with less than ideal anatomy who are poor surgical candidates. In the 40 years since its first performance, PBMV has revolutionized the care of mitral stenosis patients in developing countries and remains an important option for suitable patients in industrialized nations.