Percutaneous Treatment of Mitral Valve Regurgitation: Initial Experience with the MitraClip Device

INTRODUCTION: Mitral regurgitation (MR) is the most common valvular disease and has recently become the target of a number of percutaneous approaches. The MitraClip is virtually the only device for which there is considerable experience, with more than 20,000 procedures performed worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To describe our initial experience of the percutaneous treatment of MR with the MitraClip device. METHODS: We describe the first six MitraClip cases performed in this institution (mean age 58.5 ± 13.1 years), with functional MR grade 4+ and New York Heart Association (NYHA) heart failure class III or IV (n=3), with a mean follow-up of 290 ± 145 days. RESULTS: Procedural success (MR ≤ 2+) was 100%. Total procedure time was 115.8 ± 23.7 min, with no in-hospital adverse events and discharge between the fourth and eighth day, and consistent improvement in the six-minute walk test (329.8 ± 98.42 vs. 385.33 ± 106.95 m) and in NYHA class (three patients improved by two NYHA classes). During follow-up there were two deaths, in two of the four patients who had been initially considered for heart transplantation. CONCLUSION: In patients with functional MR the MitraClip procedure is safe, with both a high implantation and immediate in-hospital success rate. A longer follow-up suggests that the clinical benefit decreases or disappears completely in patients with more advanced heart disease, namely those denied transplantation or on the heart transplant waiting list.

Validation of Two US Risk Scores for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in a Single-Center Portuguese Population of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

INTRODUCTION: New scores have been developed and validated in the US for in-hospital mortality risk stratification in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty: the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) risk score and the Mayo Clinic Risk Score (MCRS). We sought to validate these scores in a European population with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to compare their predictive accuracy with that of the GRACE risk score. METHODS: In a single-center ACS registry of patients undergoing coronary angioplasty, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), a graphical representation of observed vs. expected mortality, and net reclassification improvement (NRI)/integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) analysis to compare the scores. RESULTS: A total of 2148 consecutive patients were included, mean age 63 years (SD 13), 74% male and 71% with ST-segment elevation ACS. In-hospital mortality was 4.5%. The GRACE score showed the best AUC (0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.96) compared with NCDR (0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.91, p=0.0003) and MCRS (0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.90, p=0.0003). In model calibration analysis, GRACE showed the best predictive power. With GRACE, patients were more often correctly classified than with MCRS (NRI 78.7, 95% CI 59.6-97.7; IDI 0.136, 95% CI 0.073-0.199) or NCDR (NRI 79.2, 95% CI 60.2-98.2; IDI 0.148, 95% CI 0.087-0.209). CONCLUSION: The NCDR and Mayo Clinic risk scores are useful for risk stratification of in-hospital mortality in a European population of patients with ACS undergoing coronary angioplasty. However, the GRACE score is still to be preferred.