Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy or MitraClip® Implantation for Patients with Severe Mitral Regurgitation and Left Bundle Branch Block?

Login or register to view PDF.
Abstract

Secondary or functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) is a common problem in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). About one-third of patients with chronic HF also have left bundle branch block (LBBB). Approximately one-third of patients with an indication for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) have moderate-to-severe FMR. This FMR may either be a consequence of systolic dysfunction or it may occur due to dyssynchrony. Both directly reducing FMR and correcting cardiac dyssynchrony are viable therapeutic approaches in selected patients, according to the 2012 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines for valvular heart disease. Initial presence of FMR is an independent predictor of lack of clinical response to CRT. Patients undergoing CRT without signs of significant clinical improvement may be considered candidates for the percutaneous MitraClip® procedure. As yet, there are not enough data to select patients that would benefit from being treated primarily with MitraClip. A clinical trial in HF patients to be randomised to either MitraClip procedure or CRT is needed to confirm actual ESC Guideline therapy.

Disclosure
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Correspondence
Dr Christian Frerker, Department of Cardiology, Asklepios Clinic St. Georg, Lohmühlenstrasse 5, 20099 Hamburg. E: c.frerker@asklepios.com
Received date
04 August 2014
Accepted date
18 November 2014
Citation
Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review, 2014;3(3):190–3
DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.15420/aer.2014.3.3.190

Prevalence of Functional Mitral Regurgitation in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure
Secondary or functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) is a common problem in patients with chronic heart failure (HF) due to dilated cardiomyopathy, regardless of aetiology.1 FMR results from an imbalance between the closing and the tethering forces that act on the mitral valve leaflets.2,3

A chart review of Koelling et al. found that almost half of their 1,436 patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and an ejection fraction ≤35 % also had mitral regurgitation (MR), with 29.7 % having moderate and 18.9 % having severe MR.4 Overall, the prevalence of severe MR in patients with HF and ventricular dysfunction is estimated at nearly 30 %.2 MR confers a worsening of prognosis of patients with ventricular dysfunction.4

Prevalence of Left Bundle Branch Block in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure
Disturbance of (systolic) cardiac synchrony is another problem frequently found in patients with HF. Caused by the cardiomyopathy itself; it further aggravates systolic dysfunction, resulting in an even lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and development or worsening of clinical symptoms. The dyssynchrony can either be seen on echocardiography or in a 12-lead electrocardiogram as an intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD) or a bundle branch block.

However, the prevalence of left bundle branch block (LBBB) is low in the general population – about one-third of patients with chronic HF show LBBB with a QRS duration ≥120 ms.5–8 In the EuroHeart Failure Survey, 41 % of all patients with LV dysfunction (LVEF ≤35 %) had a documented QRS duration ≥120 ms. These prolonged QRS durations were due to LBBB or other forms of IVCD in 34 % and due to right bundle branch block (RBBB) in 7 % of all cases.9 Correspondingly, of the 1,391 patients enlisted in the Italian Network of Congestive Heart Failure registry, 6 % had complete RBBB and 31 % had complete LBBB or unspecific IVCD. The annual incidence of LBBB is estimated at 10 % in ambulatory patients with chronic HF and LV systolic dysfunction.10

Concomitant Presence of Functional Mitral Regurgitation and Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy Indication
Approximately one-third of patients with an indication for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) also have moderate-to-severe FMR.11,12 This concomitant presence creates a certain predicament since the FMR may either be a consequence of systolic dysfunction, changed ventricular geometry and size of the left ventricle or it may occur due to this very dyssynchrony.12 In addition, MR itself is known to cause HF progression, as permanent volume overload (produced by MR) has been shown to perpetuate and worsen mechanisms leading to its genesis13 – or as Carabello wrote, “MR begets MR”.14 Physicians are then confronted with two possible therapeutic options – treat the severe MR or resynchronise the ventricles? The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines clearly suggest CRT, as it is included in the definition of ‘optimal medical therapy’, which is fundamental for every invasive procedure (see Figure 1).

Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy as a Valuable Option – Its Indications
CRT resynchronises the contractions of right and left ventricles, and reduces the degree of (systolic and diastolic) FMR both acutely15–18 and in the long term,19–23 at rest and during exercise.24,25 Therefore, CRT is an accepted Class I indication for selected patients.26,27 Although various ways of selecting patients for biventricular pacing have been suggested, the major selection criterion for entry into clinical trials has been the QRS duration. It remains the cornerstone of dyssynchrony assessment, as reflected in the 2013 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and CRT.28,29 These guidelines state that CRT can be considered in patients with chronic HF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVEF ≤35 %) and a documented QRS duration ≥120 ms who remain in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II or worse, despite appropriate medical treatment. CRT is recommended in the aforementioned patient population and LBBB with QRS duration ≥150 ms (Class IA) and LBBB with QRS duration ≥120 ms (Class IB).29

The 2013 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines
CRT aims to normalise intraventricular, interventricular and atrioventricular asynchrony, which may then entail a reduction in left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD) and volume, an increase in LVEF, improvement of the myocardial performance index and a reduction in the diastolic and systolic indices of sphericity.30 CRT further increases longitudinal systolic function by particularly reducing left intraventricular dyssynchrony,31 contributing to the reduction in annular dilation.32 Thus, both directly reducing FMR (surgically or percutaneously) and correcting cardiac dyssynchrony are viable therapeutic approaches in selected patients with symptomatic HF. According to the 2012 ESC Guidelines for valvular heart disease, the percutaneous MitraClip® procedure “may be considered in patients with symptomatic severe secondary MR despite optimal medical therapy (including CRT if indicated), who fulfill the echo criteria of eligibility, are judged inoperable or at high surgical risk by a team of cardiologists and cardiac surgeons, and who have a life expectancy greater than 1 year (recommendation class IIb, level of evidence C)”.33

Responders and Non-responders to Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy
As is often the case in medicine, some patients do respond to therapy and some do not, despite best efforts. With respect to CRT, Reuter et al.34 defined as non-responders: patients without improvement in NYHA functional class or quality of life score after CRT. The presence of MR grade 0–I was an independent predictor of lack of response. Diaz-Infante et al.35 semi-quantitatively assessed two groups (MR grade 0–II and MR grade III–IV). Patients who died, underwent heart transplantation or did not improve >10 % in their six-minute walk distance, were considered non-responders. MR grade III–IV was a predictor of non-response.13,30,35,36 In patients with FMR, CRT is able to reduce moderate or severe baseline MR to a non-significant grade in one-third of patients. In a study from 2010, CRT reduced MR from significant to non-significant in 34 % of patients but worsened it to severe MR in another 11 %.13 FMR has been reported to persist in about 20–25 % of CRT patients and, in an additional 10–15 %, it may actually worsen after CRT.37 Cabrera- Bueno et al. observed that six months after initiating CRT one-third of patients with severe FMR had improved to non-significant MR, whereas reverse ventricular remodeling, defined as a reduction of at least 10 % in LV end-systolic volume, was achieved in two-thirds of patients (mean relative reduction ± 35 %).30 However, persistence of severe MR is associated with less or no reverse remodeling, worse clinical course and a significantly higher rate of clinical and major arrhythmic events.13,38,39


Download original
Open in new tab

A change in LV end-diastolic volume after CRT proved to be the most powerful independent predictor of long-term survival. Reduction of end-diastolic volume strongly predicts lower mortality and fewer hospital admissions for HF in the long term.40

The initial presence of FMR is an independent predictor of lack of clinical response to CRT35 and of less reverse remodeling than in patients without FMR at baseline.30 CRT does have the potential to reduce the severity of MR,13,20 but data about the ‘point of no return’ of MR in systolic dysfunction are lacking. Di Biase et al. identified the degree of post-CRT reduction in MR severity at three-month followup (in 794 patients) as an independent predictor of response, strongly correlated with MR reduction at 12 months.11

Clip After Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy?
As previously discussed, compared with patients in whom CRT reduces MR, the persistence of severe MR after CRT is associated with less reverse remodeling, poor clinical outcome and a significantly higher rate of clinical and major arrhythmic events.13,38,39 Patients undergoing CRT in accordance with the guidelines of the ESC/American Heart Association (AHA)26,27 without signs of significant clinical improvement may be considered candidates for the percutaneous MitraClip procedure.29 The MitraClip (Abbott Vascular, Menlo Park, California, US) has been developed to reduce MR in the beating heart.41 It aims to adapt both mitral valve leaflets (edge-to-edge) by way of a clip, thus dividing one gaping regurgitant orifice into two smaller ones, effectively creating a double-orifice valve. It was the first percutaneous device for MR to be compared with conventional mitral valve surgery in a randomised trial in patients with structural MR (compared with Endovascular Valve Edge-to-Edge Repair [EVEREST II] trial) and fills a therapeutic gap for patients with severe MR who are considered inoperable or at high peri-operative risk.42,43 Among smaller studies, the EVEREST II trial (189 percutaneously treated patients) and the ACCESS-Europe Phase I trial (117 patients) have already proved this catheter-based treatment to be both safe and efficient with respect to total MR reduction, sustained reverse remodeling of the LV with reduction of LVESD, reduced sphericity and increase of LVEF, and finally clinical benefits such as improvement in NYHA functional class, six-minute walk distance and quality of life data.44–46 However, percutaneous repair is associated with a higher necessity of repeat procedures and less improvement in LV dimensions. These divergences were insignificant though in the subset of patients with FMR.47 MitraClip implantation has become an established therapeutic option in patients with significant MR, particularly elderly patients with substantial co-morbidities and ineligibility for surgical repair; it has found its place as a therapeutic option in ESC Guideline recommendations.33,43,44,48,49

The Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy (PERMIT-CARE) feasibility study50 enrolled 51 symptomatic CRT non-responders with predominantly ischaemic cardiomyopathy and moderate-to-severe FMR in 46 % and severe FMR in 54 %; the authors observed that MitraClip therapy achieved a reduction by at least one degree of MR severity almost instantly in most patients. In addition, there were significant reductions in both end-diastolic and end-systolic LV volumes observed at six and 12 months. The considerable improvement in NYHA functional class achieved within the ensuing 3–12 months is proof of significant FMR being one of the major reasons for a lack of response to CRT.50 Despite certain pre- and post-procedural risks, the procedure was judged feasible and safe, taking into account the high morbidity (logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation [EuroSCORE] 29.7 ± 19.4 %) of a cohort mostly considered ineligible for mitral valve surgery.50 In-line with recent MitraClip studies,44,49 three out of four patients were in NYHA functional class II or better at discharge and 12-month follow-up.50 This clinical improvement strongly correlated with a significant reduction in FMR severity. Less than 20 % of the PERMIT-CARE patients had FMR of grade ≥2 at discharge and in only 10 % did significant FMR persist at one-year follow-up.50 Long-term observations of FMR changes in CRT patients are still lacking.

Clip Before Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy?
At present, no articles have been published on MitraClip therapy performed before initiating CRT. This may be due to the recommendations of the 2013 ESC Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease.33

Conclusions
Symptomatic patients with chronic HF due to dilated cardiomyopathy need to be assessed both before and 3–6 months after receiving CRT, in particular with respect to the progression of pre-existing FMR or the development of new FMR. Response to CRT may be assessed by improvement in NYHA functional class and reverse LV remodeling, characterised by reduction in LV volumes and improved systolic and/ or diastolic function within 3–6 months. On the other hand, reliable predictors of failure to respond to CRT are still lacking. The extent of reverse remodeling is still the most important predictor of long-term prognosis.40,50–53

Considering that overall reverse remodeling was observed in the PERMIT-CARE cohort despite FMR grade ≥2 persisting at six months in up to 70 % of patients, this suggests that even a limited reduction in ventricular loading may induce reverse remodeling in CRT non-responders.50 However, evidence is still lacking.

Peri-procedural and overall mortality out to two years appear to be high in the PERMIT-CARE study, with 5.8 % and 20.0 %, respectively;50 but taking into account the patients’ poor pre-operative conditions and the dismal prognosis of non-responders,37 the possible benefits outweigh the risks.

Unfortunately, there are no data allowing a profound answer to the question: which patients with HF and FMR could benefit most from being treated primarily with MitraClip instead of or before CRT? This might be attributable to the 2012 ESC Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease, which clearly suggest that a percutaneous MitraClip procedure should be considered in non-responders to CRT only. Proper randomised studies to either confirm or weaken the above-mentioned treatment sequence are clearly lacking. Referring to the guidelines, we therefore strongly suggest a clinical trial in HF-patients with both FMR and LBBB to be randomised to either MitraClip procedure or CRT.

References
  1. Trichon BH, O’Connor CM. Secondary mitral and tricuspid regurgitation accompanying left ventricular systolic dysfunction: Is it important, and how is it treated? Am Heart J 2002;144:373–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Trichon BH, Felker GM, Shaw LK, et al. Relation of frequency and severity of mitral regurgitation to survival among patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure. Am J Cardiol 2003;91:538–43.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Aikawa K, Sheehan FH, Otto CM, et al. The severity of functional mitral regurgitation depends on the shape of the mitral apparatus: a three-dimensional echo analysis. J Heart Valve Dis 2002;11:627–36.
    PubMed
  4. Koelling TM, Aaronson KD, Cody RJ, et al. Prognostic significance of mitral regurgitation and tricuspid regurgitation in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Am Heart J 2002;144:524–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Clark AL, Goode K, Cleland JG. The prevalence and incidence of left bundle branch block in ambulant patients with chronic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2008;10:696–702.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Shenkman HJ, Pampati V, Khandelwal AK, et al. Congestive heart failure and QRS duration: establishing prognosis study. Chest 2002;122:528–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Baldasseroni S, Opasich C, Gorini M, et al. Left bundle-branch block is associated with increased 1-year sudden and total mortality rate in 5517 outpatients with congestive heart failure: a report from the Italian network on congestive heart failure. Am Heart J 2002;143:398–405.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Iuliano S, Fisher SG, Karasik PE, et al. QRS duration and mortality in patients with congestive heart failure. Am Heart J 2002;143:1085–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Rao RK, Kumar UN, Schafer J, et al. Reduced ventricular volumes and improved systolic function with cardiac resynchronization therapy: a randomized trial comparing simultaneous biventricular pacing, sequential biventricular pacing, and left ventricular pacing. Circulation 2007;115:2136–44.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Gasparini M, Bocchiardo M, Lunati M, et al. Comparison of 1-year effects of left ventricular and biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure who have ventricular arrhythmias and left bundle-branch block: the Bi vs Left Ventricular Pacing: an International Pilot Evaluation on Heart Failure Patients with Ventricular Arrhythmias (BELIEVE) multicenter prospective randomized pilot study. Am Heart J 2006;152:155 e1–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Di Biase L, Auricchio A, Mohanty P, et al. Impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy on the severity of mitral regurgitation. Europace 2011;13:829–38.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Dickstein K, Vardas PE, Auricchio A, et al. 2010 focused update of ESC Guidelines on device therapy in heart failure: an update of the 2008 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure and the 2007 ESC Guidelines for cardiac and resynchronization therapy. Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association and the European Heart Rhythm Association. Eur J Heart Fail 2010;12:1143–53.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Cabrera-Bueno F, Molina-Mora MJ, Alzueta J, et al. Persistence of secondary mitral regurgitation and response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur J Echocardiogr 2010;11:131–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Carabello BA. Ischemic mitral regurgitation and ventricular remodeling. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:384–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Breithardt OA, Sinha AM, Schwammenthal E, et al. Acute effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on functional mitral regurgitation in advanced systolic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:765–70.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Kanzaki H, Bazaz R, Schwartzman D, et al. A mechanism for immediate reduction in mitral regurgitation after cardiac resynchronization therapy: insights from mechanical activation strain mapping. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:1619–25.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Ypenburg C, Lancellotti P, Tops LF, et al. Acute effects of initiation and withdrawal of cardiac resynchronization therapy on papillary muscle dyssynchrony and mitral regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:2071–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Briongos-Figuero S, Santos-Gallego CG, Moya Mur JL. Free mitral regurgitation due to asynchrony and improvement with cardiac resynchronization. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:232.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Brandt RR, Reiner C, Arnold R, et al. Contractile response and mitral regurgitation after temporary interruption of long-term cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J 2006;27:187–92.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Cleland JG, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, et al. The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1539–49.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. St John Sutton MG, Plappert T, Abraham WT, et al. Effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy on left ventricular size and function in chronic heart failure. Circulation 2003;107:1985–90.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Ypenburg C, Lancellotti P, Tops LF, et al. Mechanism of improvement in mitral regurgitation after cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J 2008;29:757–65.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Abraham WT, Fisher WG, Smith AL, et al. Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1845–53.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Lancellotti P, Mélon P, Sakalihasan N, et al. Effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy on functional mitral regurgitation in heart failure. Am J Cardiol 2004;94:1462–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Madaric J, Vanderheyden M, Van Laethem C, et al. Early and late effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on exercise-induced mitral regurgitation: relationship with left ventricular dyssynchrony, remodelling and cardiopulmonary performance. Eur Heart J 2007;28:2134–41.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Swedberg K, Cleland J, Dargie H, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure: executive summary (update 2005): The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2005;26:1115–40.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Hunt SA, Abraham WT, Chin MH, et al. ACC/AHA 2005 Guideline Update for the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the Adult: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure): developed in collaboration with the American College of Chest Physicians and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation 2005;112:e154–235.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Hawkins NM, Petrie MC, MacDonald MR, et al. Selecting patients for cardiac resynchronization therapy: electrical or mechanical dyssynchrony? Eur Heart J 2006;27:1270–81.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. European Society of Cardiology (ESC)1; European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G, et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: the task force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Europace 2013;15:1070–118.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Cabrera-Bueno F, García-Pinilla JM, Peña-Hernández J, et al. Repercussion of functional mitral regurgitation on reverse remodelling in cardiac resynchronization therapy. Europace 2007;9:757–61.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Porciani MC, Macioce R, Demarchi G, et al. Effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on the mechanisms underlying functional mitral regurgitation in congestive heart failure. Eur J Echocardiogr 2006;7:31–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Vinereanu D. Mitral regurgitation and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Echocardiography 2008;25:1155–66.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)1; European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). Eur Heart J 2012;33:2451–96.
     
  34. Reuter S, Garrigue S, Barold SS, et al. Comparison of characteristics in responders versus nonresponders with biventricular pacing for drug-resistant congestive heart failure. Am J Cardiol 2002;89:346–50.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Diaz-Infante E, Mont L, Leal J, et al. Predictors of lack of response to resynchronization therapy. Am J Cardiol 2005;95:1436–40.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Richardson M, Freemantle N, Calvert MJ, et al. Predictors and treatment response with cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure characterized by dyssynchrony: a pre-defined analysis from the CARE-HF trial. Eur Heart J 2007;28:1827–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Ypenburg C, van Bommel RJ, Borleffs CJ, et al. Long-term prognosis after cardiac resynchronization therapy is related to the extent of left ventricular reverse remodeling at midterm follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:483–90.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Anand IS, Carson P, Galle E, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy reduces the risk of hospitalizations in patients with advanced heart failure: results from the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) trial. Circulation 2009;119:969–77.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Saxon LA, Bristow MR, Boehmer J, et al. Predictors of sudden cardiac death and appropriate shock in the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) Trial. Circulation 2006;114:2766–72.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Yu CM, Bleeker GB, Fung JW, et al. Left ventricular reverse remodeling but not clinical improvement predicts long-term survival after cardiac resynchronization therapy. Circulation 2005;112:1580–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Feldman T, Foster E, Glower DD, et al. Percutaneous repair or surgery for mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1395–406.
    Crossref
  42. Mauri L, Garg P, Massaro JM, et al. The EVEREST II Trial: design and rationale for a randomized study of the evalve mitraclip system compared with mitral valve surgery for mitral regurgitation. Am Heart J 2010;160:23–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Feldman T, Wasserman HS, Herrmann HC, et al. Percutaneous mitral valve repair using the edge-to-edge technique: six-month results of the EVEREST Phase I Clinical Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:2134–40.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Feldman T, Kar S, Rinaldi M, et al. Percutaneous mitral repair with the MitraClip system: safety and midterm durability in the initial EVEREST (Endovascular Valve Edge-to-Edge REpair Study) cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:686–94.
    PubMed
  45. Foster E, Kwan D, Feldman T, et al. Percutaneous mitral valve repair in the initial EVEREST cohort: evidence of reverse left ventricular remodeling. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;6:522–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Maisano F, Franzen O, Baldus S, et al. Percutaneous mitral valve interventions in the real world: early and 1-year results from the ACCESS-EU, a prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized post-approval study of the MitraClip therapy in Europe. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:1052–61.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Mauri L, Foster E, Glower DD, et al. 4-year results of a randomized controlled trial of percutaneous repair versus surgery for mitral regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:317–28.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Tamburino C, Ussia GP, Maisano F, et al. Percutaneous mitral valve repair with the MitraClip system: acute results from a real world setting. Eur Heart J 2010;31:1382–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Franzen O, Baldus S, Rudolph V, et al. Acute outcomes of MitraClip therapy for mitral regurgitation in high-surgical-risk patients: emphasis on adverse valve morphology and severe left ventricular dysfunction. Eur Heart J 2010;31:1373–81.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Auricchio A, Schillinger W, Meyer S, et al. Correction of mitral regurgitation in nonresponders to cardiac resynchronization therapy by MitraClip improves symptoms and promotes reverse remodeling. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:2183–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Solomon SD, Foster E, Bourgoun M, et al. Effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy on reverse remodeling and relation to outcome: multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial: cardiac resynchronization therapy. Circulation 2010;122:985–92.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Kramer DG, Trikalinos TA, Kent DM, et al. Quantitative evaluation of drug or device effects on ventricular remodeling as predictors of therapeutic effects on mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a meta-analytic approach. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:392–406.
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Verhaert D, Grimm RA, Puntawangkoon C, et al. Long-term reverse remodeling with cardiac resynchronization therapy: results of extended echocardiographic follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:1788–95.
    Crossref | PubMed