Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul;100(1):133-142.
doi: 10.1002/ccd.30224. Epub 2022 May 10.

Atrial mitral regurgitation: Characteristics and outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve edge-to-edge repair

Affiliations

Atrial mitral regurgitation: Characteristics and outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve edge-to-edge repair

Trevor Simard et al. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 Jul.

Abstract

Background: Mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (MTEER) is an established therapeutic approach for mitral regurgitation (MR). Functional mitral regurgitation originating from atrial myopathy (A-FMR) has been described.

Objectives: We sought to assess the clinical, echocardiographic and hemodynamic considerations in A-FMR patients undergoing MTEER.

Methods: From 2014 to 2020, patients undergoing MTEER for degenerative MR (DMR), functional MR (FMR), and mixed MR were assessed. A-FMR was defined by the presence of MR > moderate in severity; left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 50%; and severe left atrial (LA) enlargement in the absence of LV dysfunction, leaflet pathology, or LV tethering. The diagnosis of A-FMR (vs. ventricular-FMR [V-FMR]) was confirmed by three independent echocardiographers. Baseline characteristics, procedural outcomes as well as clinical and echocardiographic follow-up are reported. Device success was defined as final MR grade ≤ moderate; MR reduction ≥1 grade; and final transmitral gradient <5 mmHg.

Results: 306 patients underwent MTEER, including DMR (62%), FMR (19%), and mixed MR (19%). FMR cases included 37 (63.8%) V-FMR and 21 (36.2%) A-FMR. Tricuspid regurgitation (≥ moderate) was higher in A-FMR (80.1%) compared to V-FMR (54%) and DMR (42%). Device success did not significantly differ between A-FMR and V-FMR (57% vs. 73%, p = 0.34) or DMR (57% vs. 64%, p = 1.0). The A-FMR cohort was less likely to achieve ≥3 grades of MR reduction compared to V-FMR (19% vs. 54%, p = 0.01) and DMR (19% vs. 49.7%, p = 0.01). Patients with V-FMR and DMR demonstrated significant reductions in mean left atrial pressure (LAP) and peak LA V-wave, though A-FMR did not (LAP -0.24 ± 4.9, p = 0.83; peak V-wave -1.76 ± 9.1, p = 0.39). In follow-up, echocardiographic and clinical outcomes were similar.

Conclusions: In patients undergoing MTEER, A-FMR represents one-third of FMR cases. A-FMR demonstrates similar procedural success but blunted acute hemodynamic responses compared with DMR and V-FMR following MTEER. Dedicated studies specifically considering A-FMR are needed to discern the optimal therapeutic approaches.

Keywords: DMR; FMR; MitraClip; TEER; atrial MR.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

REFERENCES

    1. Stone GW, Lindenfeld J, Abraham WT, et al. Transcatheter mitral-valve repair in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2307-2318.
    1. Feldman T, Kar S, Elmariah S, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous repair and surgery for mitral regurgitation: 5-year results of EVEREST II. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66:2844-2854.
    1. El Sabbagh A, Reddy Yogesh NV, Nishimura Rick A. Mitral valve regurgitation in the contemporary era. JACC: Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11:628-643.
    1. Dziadzko V, Dziadzko M, Medina-Inojosa JR, et al. Causes and mechanisms of isolated mitral regurgitation in the community: clinical context and outcome. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:2194-2202.
    1. Reddy Yogesh NV, Obokata M, Verbrugge Frederik H, Lin G, Borlaug Barry A. Atrial dysfunction in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:1051-1064.

MeSH terms