Subscribe

DOI:

Predictive factors of successful repeat percutaneous mitral commissurotomy for mitral restenosis after previous percutaneous commissurotomy

Mrabet K.1, Frikha Z.1, Longo S.1, Kammoun S.1, Kraiem S.1, Abid L.2, Abid D.2, Henteti M.2, Kammoun S.2

Pot-pourri

Predictive factors of successful repeat percutaneous mitral commissurotomy for mitral restenosis after previous percutaneous commissurotomy

Aims: Several studies suggest that repeat percutaneous mitral commissurotomy (PMC) for mitral restenosis after a first successful intervention is safe and effective. It thus remains as a good treatment for this indication. The aim of this study was to identify the predictive factors of immediate results for repeat PMC to categorise the best candidates for this technique.

Methods and results: We retrospectively analysed data of 84 consecutive patients (mean age=30.88±12.24 years, female=81%) who have undergone a second PMC 48±23 months after a first successful PMC procedure. Among them, twenty-two (26.2%) were in atrial fibrillation. Echocardiography showed that 32.1% of the group had a Wilkins score ≤8 and 67.9% had a score >8, mean mitral valve area=1.09±0.2 cm² and mean of the mean gradient=14.8±6.6 mmHg. Mitral insufficiency ≤2 was noted in 44.6% of the cases. A good result of PMC was defined as a final valve area post PMC ≥1.5 cm² without a mitral insufficiency ≥2. A good result was achieved in 84.5% of the cases with an Inoue balloon. Valve area increased from 1.09±0.2 cm² to 1.79±0.3 cm². A severe mitral regurgitation occurred in six patients (7.1%). All of them required an urgent surgical valve replacement. Univariate analysis showed that the Wilkins score, mitral valve area and time of restenosis were the strongest factors associated with the immediate result. A Wilkins score >8 was associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 5.68 (95% CI, 0.78 to 41.5; p=0.034) for poor results. A mitral valve surface area <0.9 cm² was associated with an OR of 3.14 (95% CI, 1.2 to 8.19, p=0.028) for poor results. Compared with early restenosis, late restenosis, which is defined as a restenosis that occurs more than three years after the first PMC, was linked with an OR of 4.12 (95% CI, 0.97 to 17.46, p=0.027) with insufficient results. Finally, patients with pulmonary hypertension ≥55 mmHg tend to have less chance of a success rate than patients without (71.4% vs. 89.8%, p=0.052, OR=2.8, 95% CI, 1.01 to 7.76).

Conclusions: In conclusion, the anatomical criteria and the evolution of the disease were the strongest factors associated with the immediate result after repeat PMC. Patients in an unfavourable form and with advanced disease have less chance of benefiting from PMC. This should be taken into account when selecting candidates for repeat PMC.

Volume 8 Supplement Q
Sep 30, 2012
Volume 8 Supplement Q
View full issue


Key metrics

Suggested by Cory

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-20-01008 Apr 20, 2021
Clinical impact of intervention strategies after failed transcatheter mitral valve repair
Alessandrini H et al
free

10.4244/EIJV16I2A14 Jun 12, 2020
Lessons learned from the MitraSwiss registry
Ince H and D’Ancona G
free

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00718 Jun 12, 2020
Impact of mitral regurgitation aetiology on MitraClip outcomes: the MitraSwiss registry
Sürder D et al
free
Trending articles
69.996

10.4244/EIJV13I12A217 Dec 8, 2017
Swimming against the tide: insights from the ORBITA trial
Al-Lamee R and Francis D
free
59.65

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00066 Apr 21, 2025
Management of complications after valvular interventions
Bansal A et al
free
57.6

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00386 Feb 3, 2025
Mechanical circulatory support for complex, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention
Ferro E et al
free
38.75

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00912 Oct 7, 2024
Optical coherence tomography to guide percutaneous coronary intervention
Almajid F et al
free
15.85

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-01050 Jul 15, 2024
Durability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Ternacle J et al
free
Chat with Cory
Hello , I'm Cory and I will do my best to answer your questions about this article. Please remember that this is an experimental feature, and that I'm still learning.
What is the definition of a good result in this study?
What anatomical factors were associated with poorer immediate results after repeat PMC?
What is the significance of the Wilkins score in predicting the outcome of repeat PMC?
How should the findings of this study be considered when selecting candidates for repeat PMC?
X

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 7.6
2023 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2024)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2025 Europa Group - All rights reserved