RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare, in high-risk patients with 3+ to 4+ mitral regurgitation (MR) dichotomized by baseline echocardiographic features, acute, 30-day, and 12-month outcomes following percutaneous mitral valve repair using the MitraClip. BACKGROUND: The feasibility and mid-term outcomes after MitraClip implantation in patients with echocardiographic features different from the EVEREST (Endovascular Valve Edge-to-Edge Repair) I and II trials have been scarcely studied. METHODS: Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes through 12-month follow-up of consecutive patients who underwent MitraClip implantation were obtained from an ongoing prospective registry. Two different groups, divided according to baseline echocardiographic criteria (investigational group [EVERESTOFF] and control group [EVERESTON]), were compared. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were included in EVERESTOFF and 93 patients in EVERESTON groups. Important and comparable acute reductions in MR and no clip-related complications were revealed. The primary safety endpoint at 30 days was comparable between groups (2.6% vs. 6.5%, respectively, p = 0.204); in addition, MR reduction was mostly sustained, whereas equivalent improvement in New York Heart Association functional class were demonstrated. Kaplan-Meier freedom from death, surgery for mitral valve dysfunction, or grade ≥3+ MR at 12 months was demonstrated in 71.4% and 76.2%, respectively, in the EVERESTOFF and EVERESTON groups (log rank p = 0.378). Significant improvements in ejection fraction and reduction in left ventricle volumes were demonstrated in both groups over time, but the baseline between-group differences were sustained. CONCLUSIONS: MitraClip implantation in patients with expanded baseline echocardiographic features, compared with the control group, was associated with similar rates of safety and efficacy through 12-month follow-up. Further validation of our findings is warranted.