We have located links that may give you full text access.
In-hospital outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve repair with Mitraclip in patients with pulmonary hypertension: Insights from the National Inpatient Sample.
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 2019 July 2
BACKGROUND: Periprocedural outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) with Mitraclip in patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) are not well studied.
METHODS: Patients who underwent TMVR with Mitraclip between 2011 and 2015 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). All missing variables were excluded from the analysis and therefore, complete case analysis was performed.
RESULTS: A total of 1,037 patients underwent TMVR with Mitraclip between 2011 and 2015. The prevalence of PH in these patients was 32.6%. In-hospital outcomes were compared between PH group and non-PH group. Inpatient mortality after TMVR was similar between the two groups (3.2% vs. 2.1%, OR 1.57, P = 0.335). There was no statistical significance between the two groups in the rates of hemorrhage requiring transfusion (8.5% vs. 7.2%, OR 1.17, P = 0.587), cardiogenic shock (4.4% vs. 4.5%, OR 0.98, P = 0.951), acute respiratory failure (15.2% vs. 13.1%, OR 1.23, P = 0.460), postoperative sepsis (2.75% vs. 3.9%, OR 0.66, P = 0.340), postoperative deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (2.7% vs. 3.9%, OR 1.98, P = 0.348). In addition, non-routine home discharge, median hospital cost and length of stay were similar between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Pre-existing PH in patients undergoing TMVR with Mitraclip does not adversely affect in-hospital outcomes in this cohort of patients. Therefore, PH does not carry a prohibitive risk in selecting patients for Mitraclip procedure.
METHODS: Patients who underwent TMVR with Mitraclip between 2011 and 2015 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). All missing variables were excluded from the analysis and therefore, complete case analysis was performed.
RESULTS: A total of 1,037 patients underwent TMVR with Mitraclip between 2011 and 2015. The prevalence of PH in these patients was 32.6%. In-hospital outcomes were compared between PH group and non-PH group. Inpatient mortality after TMVR was similar between the two groups (3.2% vs. 2.1%, OR 1.57, P = 0.335). There was no statistical significance between the two groups in the rates of hemorrhage requiring transfusion (8.5% vs. 7.2%, OR 1.17, P = 0.587), cardiogenic shock (4.4% vs. 4.5%, OR 0.98, P = 0.951), acute respiratory failure (15.2% vs. 13.1%, OR 1.23, P = 0.460), postoperative sepsis (2.75% vs. 3.9%, OR 0.66, P = 0.340), postoperative deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (2.7% vs. 3.9%, OR 1.98, P = 0.348). In addition, non-routine home discharge, median hospital cost and length of stay were similar between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Pre-existing PH in patients undergoing TMVR with Mitraclip does not adversely affect in-hospital outcomes in this cohort of patients. Therefore, PH does not carry a prohibitive risk in selecting patients for Mitraclip procedure.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app