Optimizing Percutaneous Mitral Valvuloplasty for Rheumatic Mitral Stenosis　- Clinical Significance of Changes in Mitral Valve Area.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty (PMV) is a standard treatment for severe rheumatic mitral stenosis (RMS). However, the prognostic significance of the change in mitral valve area (∆MVA) during PMV is not fully understood.Methods and Results: This study analyzed data from the Multicenter mitrAl STEnosis with Rheumatic etiology (MASTER) registry, which included 3,140 patients with severe RMS. We focused on patients with severe RMS undergoing their first PMV. Changes in echocardiographic parameters, including MVA quantified before and after PMV, and composite outcomes, including mitral valve reintervention, heart failure admission, stroke, and all-cause death, were evaluated. An optimal result was defined as a postprocedural MVA ≥1.5 cm2without mitral regurgitation greater than Grade II. Of the 308 patients included in the study, those with optimal results and ∆MVA >0.5 cm² had a better prognosis (log-rank P<0.001). Patients who achieved optimal results but with ∆MVA ≤0.5 cm² had a greater risk of composite outcomes than those with optimal outcomes and ∆MVA >0.5 cm² (nested Cox regression analysis, hazard ratio 2.27; 95% confidence interval 1.09-4.73; P=0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Achieving an increase in ∆MVA of >0.5 cm2was found to be correlated with improved outcomes. This suggests that, in addition to achieving traditional optimal results, targeting an increase in ∆MVA of >0.5 cm2could be a beneficial objective in PMV treatment for RMS.

Outcomes of Severe Mitral Stenosis With the Revised Severity Criteria: Mitral Valve Replacement vs Percutaneous Mitral Valvuloplasty.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the outcomes, according to percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty (PMV) vs mitral valve replacement (MVR), of severe mitral stenosis (MS) with the updated criteria (MVA ≤ 1.5 cm2). METHODS: From the Multicenter Mitral Stenosis With Rheumatic Etiology (MASTER) registry of 3140 patients, we included patients with severe MS who underwent PMV or MVR between January 2000 and December 2021 except for previous valvular surgery/intervention, at least moderate other valvular dysfunction, and thrombus at the left atrium/appendage. Moderately severe MS (MS-MS) and very severe MS (VS-MS) were defined as 1.0 cm2 < MVA ≤ 1.5 cm2 and MVA ≤ 1.0 cm2, respectively. Primary outcomes were a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were a composite of primary outcomes and redo intervention. RESULTS: Among 442 patients (mean 56.5 ±11.9 years, women 77.1%), the MVR group (n = 260) was older, had more comorbidities, higher echoscore, larger left chambers, and higher right ventricular systolic pressure than the PMV group (n = 182). During a mean follow-up of 6.9 ± 5.2 years with inverse probability-weighted matching, primary outcomes did not differ, but the MVR group experienced fewer secondary outcomes (P = 0.010). In subgroup analysis of patients with MS-MS and VS-MS, primary outcomes did not differ. However, the MVR group in patients with VS-MS showed better secondary outcomes (P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: PMV or MVR did not influence CV mortality or HF hospitalization in both MS-MS and VS-MS. However, because of increased early redo intervention in the PMV group in VS-MS, MVR would be the preferable option without clear evidence of suitable morphology for PMV.