4.3 Article

Can stress echocardiography identify patients who will benefit from percutaneous mitral valve repair?

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING
Volume 35, Issue 4, Pages 645-651

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10554-018-1507-x

Keywords

Mitral regurgitation; Echocardiography; Transcatheter valve interventions; MitraClip

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the current study was to investigate whether stress echocardiography improves selection of patients who might have clinical benefit from percutaneous mitral valve repair with the MitraClip. In total, 39 patients selected for MitraClip implantation underwent preprocedural low-dose stress (dobutamine or handgrip) echocardiography from which stroke volume, ejection fraction and MR grade were measured. Outcome after MitraClip implantation was determined by New York Heart Association classification and Quality of Life questionnaires. Clinical benefit from MitraClip treatment was defined as survival and NYHA class I-II at 6months follow-up. In total, 36 patients with a technically successful procedure were included in the analysis (mean age 79 +/- 8years, 47% male, 50% functional MR). Clinical benefit was achieved in 18 patients. All seven patients with MR decreasing during stress remained in NYHA III-IV or died within 6months, while 62% (18 out of 29) of the patients with stable or increased MR during stress had clinical benefit (p=0.008). Significant increase in Quality of Life on 4/8 subscales of the RAND Short Form-36 questionnaire was observed: Physical Functioning (p<0.001), Social Functioning (p<0.001), Mental Health (p=0.022) and Vitality (p=0.026) was seen in patients with an increase in stroke volume during stress echocardiography. Patients with a decreased MR during preprocedural stress echocardiography remained more symptomatic than patients with a stable or increased MR during stress. Stress echocardiography may support patient selection for percutaneous mitral valve repair.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available