4.6 Article

Temporal Trends on Percutaneous Mitral Commissurotom: 30 Years of Experience

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.119.012031

关键词

mitral stenosis; percutaneous procedure; temporal trends

资金

  1. French Society of Cardiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Percutaneous mitral commissurotomy (PMC) was the first available transcatheter technique for treatment of mitral valve diseases. Experience has led to extending the indications to patients with less favorable characteristics. We aimed to analyze (1) the temporal trends in characteristic and outcomes of patients undergoing PMC in a single center over 30 years and (2) the predictive factors of poor immediate results of PMC. Methods and Results-From 1987 to 2016, 1 full year for each decade was analyzed: 1987, 1996, 2006, and 2016. Poor immediate results of PMC were defined as a mitral valve area <1.5 cm(2) or MR (mitral regurgitation) grade >2. Mitral anatomy was assessed using the Cormier classification and the fluoroscopic extent of calcification. Six hundred three patients were included: 111, 202, 205, and 85, respectively. Mean age increased >10 years over time (P<0.0001). Mitral anatomy was less favorable over the years: the presence of calcification increased from 25% of patients at the beginning of PMC to >40% during the past decade (P<0.0001) with a 3-fold increase in severe mitral calcification. Consistently, the proportion of good immediate results decreased over time (P<0.05) but remained at 76% in 2016. Multivariate analysis showed 3 predictive factors of poor immediate results: smaller baseline mitral valve area (P<0.0001), pre-PMC MR grade 2 (P<0.01), and the presence or amount of calcification (P<0.001). Conclusions-This clinic's patients became significantly older with more frequent and severe calcification in the past decade. Predictive factors of poor immediate results were related to valve anatomy, including calcification. Despite challenges raised by severe calcification, PMC was still successful in >3 out of 4 patients in recent years.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据