Objectives: To investigate how the changes of left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) between admission and discharge affected the long-term outcome in patients who underwent percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair for secondary mitral regurgitation. Background: An acute impairment of LVEF after surgical repair of mitral regurgitation, known as afterload mismatch, has been associated with increased all-cause mortality. Afterload mismatch after percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair has been postulated to be a transient phenomenon. Methods: This study is based on a single-center, retrospective, observational registry of patients who underwent percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair with the MitraClip (Abbot Vascular) system for the treatment of symptomatic, moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation. We included data on 399 patients who underwent percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair for secondary mitral regurgitation. Expert echocardiographers assessed LVEF before the procedure and at discharge. The patients were divided into three groups according to the difference of periprocedural LVEF measurements: unchanged (n = 318), improved (n = 40), and decreased (n = 41) LVEF. Results: The median follow-up time was 2.0 years. When adjusted for gender, NYHA class and estimated glomerular filtration rate, decreased postprocedural LVEF was associated with an increased risk of death (adjusted HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.26–3.34) and increased postprocedural LVEF with a reduced risk of death (adjusted HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24–0.91) compared to unchanged LVEF. Conclusion: Among patients who underwent percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair, decreased postprocedural LVEF was associated with increased mortality, while improved LVEF was associated with lower mortality compared to unchanged LVEF.

Background: Concomitant mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER) and left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) showed to be a feasible approach to optimize the treatment of patients eligible for both procedures, but mid-term outcomes are unclear. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients undergoing M-TEER and enrolled in the local prospective Getting Reduction of Mitral Insufficiency by Percutaneous Clip Implantation (GRASP) registry. We compared patients undergoing isolated M-TEER (n = 58, 58.5%) with those undergoing concomitant M-TEER and LAAC (n = 41, 41.5%) from January 2018 to December 2022. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, stroke or systemic embolism, hospitalization for heart failure, and bleeding at 1 year. The co-primary endpoint was procedural success. Results: The primary endpoint was similar between patients undergoing concomitant M-TEER+LAAC or isolated M-TEER (Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates 36.6% vs. 44.8%; p_log-rank = 0.75). Procedural success was also similar (92.7% vs. 94.8%; p = 0.69). At 1- year, minor bleeds were lower in patients undergoing concomitant M-TEER and LAAC (KM estimates 0.0% vs. 18.9%; p_log-rank < 0.01). Conclusion: In patients with concomitant MR and AF and eligible for M-TEER and LAAC treatment, a combined approach of M-TEER and LAAC was as safe as an M-TEER-alone strategy and associated with lower minor bleeding at 1 year.

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a crucial intervention for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who are unsuitable for long-term anticoagulation. Amulet and Watchman are the most implanted devices worldwide for performing LAAC, and the aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive comparison focusing on their efficacy, safety, and short- and long-term outcomes. The Watchman device, the first to gain FDA approval, has been extensively studied and demonstrates significant reductions in stroke and systemic embolism rates. The Amulet device, a newer alternative, promises enhanced design features for more efficient appendage sealing. Current data highlight that both devices offer similar efficacy and safety for LAAC. While the two devices differ in terms of intraprocedural complication rates, they offer similar short- to long-term outcomes in terms of peri-device leaks, device-related thrombosis, and mortality. Both devices are indicated for patients who are unable to tolerate OAC, given their similar risk and safety profiles. Newer clinical studies are directed at establishing the efficacy of both devices as the primary method for stroke prevention in AF as an alternative to OAC.

Background and aim of the study: The safety of percutaneous mitral valve repair with the MitraClip system has been documented. However, few data are available on high‐risk patients not amenable to surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients with prior cardiac surgery undergoing MitraClip therapy (Abbott, Abbott Park, Chicago, IL, USA) for severe mitral regurgitation. Methods: We reported two cases of percutaneous treatment of severe mitral regurgitation performed in patients who had previously undergone cardiac surgery with the implantation of mechanical prosthetic aortic valve. Results: In both the reported cases a sustained reduction in mitral regurgitation severity was obtained at two‐year follow‐up, with a relevant improvement in terms of clinical status and quality of life. Conclusions: Percutaneous mitral valve repair using the MitraClip system represents a viable treatment choice for severe mitral regurgitation in high‐risk patients who have previously undergone cardiac surgery. (J Card Surg 2012;27:295‐298)