Procedural, Short-Term, and Intermediate-Term Outcomes in Propensity-Matched Patients With Severe Mitral Valve Regurgitation Undergoing Urgent Versus Elective MitraClip Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair.

OBJECTIVE: The study authors sought to compare outcomes in patients with severe mitral valve regurgitation (MR) undergoing urgent, as compared to elective, mitral valve repair employing MitraClip. They hypothesized that, compared to elective cases, MitraClip procedures performed for urgent indications would be associated with increased intraoperative and postoperative complications but have similar long-term outcomes. DESIGN: A retrospective chart review with 3:1 propensity score matching of elective-to-urgent cases. SETTING: A single, large-volume tertiary care academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: All consecutive patients with severe MR who underwent elective or urgent MitraClip procedures between December 15, 2015, and October 26, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: MR repair with MitraClip. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: As expected, patients in the urgent MitraClip group required a higher level of preprocedural care, and there were significant differences in baseline demographic and clinical variables as compared to the elective group. To reduce baseline characteristics heterogeneity, propensity matching was performed for age, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and smoking histories, using the nearest-neighbor matching with a caliper of 0.2 and with replacement. The final study cohort included 89 urgent and 252 matched elective cases, with a suitable alignment between the treatment groups. Propensity-matched urgent MitraClip patients experienced a longer hospital length of stay (p < 0.001), increased intensive care unit admissions (19% v 4%, p < 0.001) and mechanical ventilation (6.7% v 1.6%, p = 0.023), postprocedural atrial fibrillation (11% v 4.4%, p = 0.036), pericardial effusion (10% v 2.4%, p = 0.005), and acute kidney injury (7.9% v 2%, p = 0.016). Furthermore, patients in the urgent cohort incurred significantly higher 30-day cardiovascular mortality (6.7% v 2%, p = 0.039), increased 30-day (16% v 5.6%, p = 0.006), and 1-year (33% v 20%, p = 0.021) readmission rates. However, there were no statistically significant differences in 30-day and 1-year overall and 1-year cardiovascular mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Urgent MitraClip repairs can be performed successfully, when needed, in critically ill patients with severe MR. Despite the procedural success, patients undergoing urgent MitraClip repair remain at high risk for adverse outcomes in the short- and intermediate-term and incur increased cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. Further efforts are required to develop strategies to optimize short and intermediate outcomes in this vulnerable group of patients.

Patient Selection and Outcomes of Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Performed with Monitored Anesthesia Care Versus General Anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) versus general anesthesia (GA) for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) and to describe a selection process for the administration of MAC. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent TF-TAVR under MAC or GA. SETTING: Department of Cardiac Anesthesia, Albany Medical Center, a tertiary university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients selected for TF-TAVR. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into those who underwent MAC and those who underwent GA. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study comprised 104 consecutive patients (55% male, mean age 83 years) who underwent TF-TAVR under MAC (n = 60) or GA (n = 37) from 2014 to 2015. Seven patients were converted from MAC to GA and were omitted from analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between 30-day mortality and complications between the 2 groups. The MAC group had a significantly shorter median intensive care unit length of stay (48 h v 74 h, p = 0.0002). The MAC group also demonstrated reduced procedural time (45.5 min v 62 min, p = 0.003); operating room time (111 min v 153 min, p = <0.001); and fluoroscopy time (650 s v 690 s, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Patient selection for TF-TAVR with MAC can be formalized and implemented successfully. MAC allows for the minimizing of patient exposure to unnecessary interventions and improving resource utilization in suitable TAVR patients. Selection requires a multidisciplinary clinical decision-making process. MAC demonstrates good outcomes compared with GA, yet it is important to have a cardiac anesthesiologist present in the event of emergency conversion to GA.