Controversies in balloon mitral valvuloplasty: the when (timing for intervention), what (choice of valve), and how (selection of technique)

Abstract

Despite the established role of percutaneous balloon mitral valvuloplasty (BMV) in the treatment of mitral stenosis, major controversial issues in the realm of BMV persist. With increased operator experience, BMV has now been extended to include various controversial scenarios, such as mild mitral stenosis, adverse valve morphologies, and high-risk patients with concomitant anatomic distortions which are technically demanding. In skilled hands, however, BMV has yielded a favorable outcome in these settings. Furthermore, the debate on whether the Inoue or the double-balloon approach is superior continues. Studies to date have shown equal efficacy of the two BMV methods in terms of valve enlargement although the Inoue approach is clearly simpler to execute and may potentially be associated with a lower risk of creating severe mitral regurgitation. Last, because of the lack of consensus on optimal balloon sizing for BMV, perhaps the best method to adopt at this stage is one that is simple and safe to apply across a broad spectrum of valve anatomy.