Past, current and future management of secondary mitral valve disease: the importance of anatomic staging

Mid-term outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement using a mosaic porcine bioprosthesis with concomitant mitral valve repair

This study retrospectively evaluated the mid-term outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) using a stented porcine aortic valve bioprosthesis (Mosaic; Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) with concomitant mitral valve (MV) repair. From 1999 to 2014, 157 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 75 [70-79] years; 47% women) underwent SAVR with concomitant MV repair (SAVR + MV repair), and 1045 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 76 [70-80] years; 54% women) underwent SAVR only at 10 centers in Japan as part of the long-term multicenter Japan Mosaic valve (J-MOVE) study. The 5-year overall survival rate was 81.5% ± 4.1% in the SAVR + MV repair group and 85.1% ± 1.4% in the SAVR only group, and the 8-year overall survival rates were 75.2% ± 5.7% and 78.1% ± 2.1%, respectively. Cox proportional hazards analysis showed no significant difference in the survival rates between the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-1.40; P = 0.576). Among women with mild or moderate mitral regurgitation who were not receiving dialysis, those who underwent SAVR + MV repair, were aged > 75 years, and had a preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction of 30-75% tended to have a lower mortality risk. In conclusion, this subgroup analysis of the J-MOVE cohort showed relevant mid-term outcomes after SAVR + MV repair.

Mitral regurgitation management: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations

Multiple guidelines exist for the diagnosis and management of mitral regurgitation (MR), the second most common valvular heart disease in high-income countries, with recommendations that do not always match. We systematically reviewed guidelines on diagnosis and management of MR, highlighting similarities and differences to guide clinical decision-making. We searched national and international guidelines in MEDLINE and EMBASE (1 June 2010 to 1 September 2021), the Guidelines International Network, National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Library for Health Guidelines Finder, Canadian Medical Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Infobase, and websites of relevant organizations. Two reviewers independently screened the abstracts and identified articles of interest. Guidelines that were rigorously developed (as assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument) were retained for analysis. Five guidelines were retained. There was consensus on a multidisciplinary approach from the heart team and for the definition and grading of severe primary MR. There was general agreement on the thresholds for intervention in symptomatic and asymptomatic primary MR; however, discrepancies were present. There was agreement on optimization of medical therapy in severe secondary MR and intervention in patients symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy, but no consensus on the choice of intervention (surgical repair/replacement vs. transcatheter approach). Cut-offs for high-risk intervention in MR, risk stratification of progressive MR, and guidance on mixed valvular disease were sparse.

Selection of the Optimal Candidate to MitraClip for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: Beyond Mitral Valve Morphology

Secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) occurs despite structurally normal valve apparatus due to an underlying disease of the myocardium leading to disruption of the balance between tethering and closing forces with ensuing failure of leaflet coaptation. In patients with heart failure (HF) and left ventricular dysfunction, secondary MR is independently associated with poor outcome, yet prognostic benefits related to the correction of MR have remained elusive. Surgery is not recommended for the correction of secondary MR outside coronary artery bypass grafting. Percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) with MitraClip implantation has recently evolved as a new transcatheter treatment option of inoperable or high-risk patients with severe MR, with promising results supporting the extension of guideline recommendations. MitraClip is highly effective in reducing secondary MR in HF patients. However, the derived clinical benefit is still controversial as two randomized trials directly comparing PMVR vs. optimal medical therapy in severe secondary MR yielded virtually opposite conclusions. We reviewed current evidence to identify predictors of PMVR-related outcomes in secondary MR useful to improve the timing and the selection of patients who would derive maximal benefit from MitraClip intervention. Beyond mitral valve anatomy, optimal candidate selection should rely on a comprehensive diagnostic workup and a fine-tuned risk stratification process aimed at (i) recognizing the substantial heterogeneity of secondary MR and its complex interaction with the myocardium, (ii) foreseeing hemodynamic consequences of PMVR, (iii) anticipating futility and (iv) improving symptoms, quality of life and overall survival.