Skip to main content

Advertisement

ADVERTISEMENT

Peer Review

Peer Reviewed

Original Contribution

Mitral Valve Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair With PASCAL Vs MitraClip: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Federico Oliveri, MD1,2; Ibtihal Al Amri, MD, PhD2; José Montero Cabezas, MD2; Brian Bingen, MD, PhD2; Frank Van Der Kley, MD, PhD2; Fatih Arslan, MD, PhD2; Roderick Scherptong, MD, PhD2; Pietro Mazzarotto, MD3; Mario Bollati, MD3; Antonella Pepe, MD1; Lorenzo Tua, MD1,4; Andrea Bongiorno, MD1; Alessandro Fasolino, MD1; Francesca Romana Gentile, MD1; Davide Colombo, MD1; Stefano Ghio, MD5; Marco Ferlini, MD5; Andrea Munafo, MD1

November 2023
1557-2501
J INVASIVE CARDIOL 2023;35(11): Epub November 14, 2023. doi:10.25270/jic/23.00218

Abstract

Background. Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) using the MitraClip (Abbott Vascular) system has emerged as a standard treatment for patients with symptomatic severe secondary or inoperable primary mitral regurgitation (MR). The relatively recent approval of the PASCAL Transcatheter Valve Repair System (Edwards Lifesciences) has expanded the options of TEER devices. However, evidence comparing PASCAL with MitraClip systems is still limited.

Methods. We conducted a systematic literature research and meta-analysis in PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE databases for studies comparing PASCAL and MitraClip systems.

Results. Four observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial, involving 1315 patients total, were eligible for inclusion. All patients exhibited symptomatic (NYHA II-IV) MR grades 3+ or 4+. Baseline characteristics were comparable across all included studies. The clinical outcomes were assessed according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium consensus. The procedural success rates for the 2 devices were comparable in terms of achieving post-procedural MR grades of less than or equal to 2+ and less than or equal to 1+. Furthermore, most patients improved their clinical status, with no significant differences between patients treated with PASCAL and those treated with MitraClip. In terms of safety, both procedures exhibited low overall mortality rates and occurrence of major adverse events (MAE), without significant difference between the 2 devices. These findings remained consistent in both short- and long-term follow-up assessments.

Conclusions. Our study revealed similar effectiveness and safety profiles between the PASCAL and MitraClip devices in patients experiencing significant symptomatic MR.

 

Introduction

Mitral regurgitation (MR) is the second most frequent valvular heart disease in Europe and the first in the United States.1,2 Left untreated, severe symptomatic MR is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.3 Mitral valve surgery remains the best option for symptomatic severe degenerative MR and selected patients with symptomatic severe functional MR.4-6 However, many patients are not fit for mitral valve surgery because of high surgical risk related to relevant comorbidities and/or advanced age.7 In this setting, transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) has emerged as an alternative for patients with symptomatic severe functional MR or inoperable degenerative MR.8,9

The safety and efficacy of the MitraClip device (Abbott Vascular) was primarily tested in multiple randomized controlled trials (RCT), leading to an exponential expansion of its utilization.10-12 In early 2019, the PASCAL Transcatheter Valve Repair System (Edwards Lifesciences) received Conformité Européenne (CE) mark approval, extending the field of TEER devices. Although both devices address MR by leaflet approximation, the PASCAL system offers distinct technical features, including a central spacer to fill the regurgitation orifice, and a less traumatic grasping feature. However, since the more recent approval, the evidence on PASCAL use is scarce compared to that on MitraClip. Therefore, it is reasonable to question whether these 2 procedures can be considered interchangeable. Accordingly, the present study aimed to systematically compare PASCAL with MitraClip regarding safety and efficacy in patients with significant symptomatic MR.

 

Methods

Search strategy. We performed a systematic literature review through February 2023 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines.13 We systematically searched pertinent articles on PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE databases. Terms used to detect the desired studies were the following: “MitraClip”, “PASCAL”, “MitraClip versus PASCAL”, and “Mitral Valve Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair”. The search included only peer-reviewed studies on human subjects published in the English language. To include pertinent papers, 3 authors (F.O., I.A.A., A.P.) independently looked for additional citations from the references list of included relevant articles.

Study selection. Three reviewers (F.O., I.A.A., L.T.) independently proceeded with the initial screening process to recognize all citations of potential acceptability. The inclusion criteria were the following:

  1. Comparison between PASCAL and MitraClip in patients suffering from 3+/4+ symptomatic (New York Heart Association [NYHA] ≥2) degenerative (primary) or functional (secondary) MR;
  2. Studies including patients 18 years old or older;
  3. Studies including 100 or more participants;
  4. Observational studies (OBs) or RCT design published in a peer-reviewed journal; and
  5. Original untranslated studies written in English language only.

Full-text papers of recognized abstracts pertinent to our inclusion criteria were evaluated for eligibility. The excluded papers were case reports/series, letters, conference abstracts, and editorials. The Kappa statistic was utilized to assess the inter-rater reliability of the 2 reviewers.14

Data extraction. Two authors (A.B., A.F.) extracted inherent data independently using a standardized recording tool to document the study setting and design, year of publication, number of study participants, country of origin, participant clinical characteristics, and study outcomes.

Quality assessment. Two authors (F.R.G, D.C.) assessed the risk of bias of all considered RCTs according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool.15 In case of discrepancy, a third author (F.A.) rechecked data and made the final evaluation (Figure S1).

We applied the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to assess the included quality assessment of the included observational studies. Two authors (F.R.G., D.C.) evaluated the quality of each study by checking 3 broad categories: (1) selection, (2) comparability, and (3) outcomes. Any individual study could achieve a maximum of 9 stars (4 stars for selection, 2 stars for comparability, and 3 stars for the outcome).16 Then, we converted an individual study's NOS score into Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) standards.17 Thus, studies were sub-classified into 3 class of quality categories (Supplemental Table):

  1. Poor quality: less than or equal to 1 star for selection domain OR 0 stars for comparability domain OR less than or equal to 1 star for outcome domain.
  2. Fair quality: 2 stars for selection domain AND 1 or 2 stars for comparability domain AND 2 or 3 stars for outcome domain.
  3. Good quality: greater than or equal to 3 stars for selection domain AND greater than or equal to 1 star for comparability domain AND greater than or equal to 2 stars in outcome domain.

Data analysis and synthesis. We utilized the Review Manager software (RevMan-5.4.1) to conduct our statistical analyses. The overall odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) and the 95% CI for each analyzed parameter were pooled using a random effects model. Furthermore, we drew forest and funnel plots to visually evaluate the pooling results and identify possible publication biases and the power of the included studies. OR greater than 1 indicated an increased risk of the considered outcome; OR value of 1 indicated no observed association; and OR less than 1 indicated a decreased risk of the considered outcome. A 2-sided P-value less than .05 was considered statistically significant. Furthermore, the studies’ heterogeneity results were calculated using the Higgins I2, which measured the percentage of the total variation across the included studies.18 The values of I2 lie between 0% and 100%, and a value of 0% indicates no heterogeneity. We classified heterogeneity as mild (I2<25%), moderate (25≤I2<50%), severe (50≤I2<75%), and very severe (I2≥75%).19

 

Results

Literature search. Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram of the study identification. A total of 1875 records were identified in the preliminary search. Of these, 1750 did not meet inclusion criteria and were therefore excluded. A total of 10 studies were used for data extraction and synthesis for our systematic review. Five articles were finally included in our meta-analysis.

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram checklist.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram checklist.

 

Characteristics of the included studies. Characteristics of the included studies are listed in Table 1 and Table 2. The majority of the included papers were observational-designed (3 retrospective and 1 prospective),20-23 while one was an RCT.24 The included studies were conducted in Germany and the United States and included more than 20 academic hospitals. The total number of individuals in our meta-analysis was 1315 (659 PASCAL and 656 MitraClip). Most of the patients were in class NYHA III-IV at baseline (81.3% vs 81.9% for PASCAL and MitraClip, respectively) with no heterogeneity between the 2 groups (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.84-1.49; P=.45; I2=0%). All patients had symptomatic 3+ (39.6% vs 37.5%; OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.93-1.51; P=.16; I2=0%) or 4+ MR (60.4% vs 62.5%; OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66-1.07; P=.16; I2=0%). Functional MR was the main indication for intervention (53.4% vs 58.7%; OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.28; P=.99; I2=0%), followed by degenerative (46.6% vs 39.5%; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.81-1.34; P=.74; I2=0%) and mixed (overall 1.4%) regurgitation (Figure S2).

 

Table 1. Patient clinical characteristics

 

Table 2. Baseline Echocardiographic characteristics

 

The clinical outcomes were reported using the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium consensus,25 except for a minimal difference in the procedural success definition in 1 retrospective study.20 Follow-up differed among the studies, ranging from hospital discharge to 18 months. Thus, we divided the outcomes into 3 temporal categories: before hospital discharge, short-term follow-up (30 days to 4 months), and long-term follow-up (6 months up to 18 months).

Publication bias. The funnel plot in Figure S3 highlighted no significant asymmetry, limiting the overall risk of publication bias.

Before hospital discharge. Figure 2 shows the comparison between PASCAL and MitraClip in terms of pre-hospital discharge outcomes. The procedural success was comparable (97.0% vs 97.9%; OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.30-1.20; P=.15, I2=0%) among the 2 procedures. No statistically significant difference in post-procedural MR less than or equal to 2+ (98.1% vs 100%; OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.72-1.81; P=.57; I2=0%) as well as MR less than or equal to 1+ (72.8% vs 64.9%; OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.76-1.20; P=.49; I2=58%) was assessed. Mean anterograde transmitral valve gradient was also comparable (MD -0.30 mmHg; 95% CI, -0.80/+0.20; P=.24; I2=64%). Furthermore, the overall mortality was similar (0.18% vs 1.24%; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.06-1.91; P=.22; I2=0%).

 

Figure 2. Receiver operating characteristic curves
Figure 2. Receiver operating characteristic curves for (A) hydration volume and (B) hydration volume/contrast media volume ratio.

 

Short-term follow-up. At short-term follow-up (Figure 3), there were comparable rates of overall mortality incidence (1.9% vs 3.3%; OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.32-1.39; P=.28; I2=0%), major adverse events (4.7% vs 8.4%; OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.38-1.19; P=.18; I2=0%), cerebrovascular events (0.3% vs 1.1%; OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.09-1.19, P=.31; I2=5%), and severe bleeding (2.5% vs 1.1%; OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 0.69-5.33; P=.21; I2=0%) between PASCAL and MitraClip. The necessity for reintervention was also similar between the 2 devices (0.8% vs 1.1%; OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.26-2.93; P=.83; I2=0%). No statistically significant difference was observed in post-procedural MR less than or equal to 2+ (93.2% vs 90.9%; OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.68-2.18; P=.52; I2=17%) or in MR less than or equal to 1+ (68.5% vs 55.6%; OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.74-2.31; P=.36, I2=70%). Moreover, the NYHA I-II was comparable (65.1% vs 63.2%; OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.45-1.61; P=.49; I2=67%).

 

Figure 3: Forest plots for short-term follow-up outcomes
Figure 3: Forest plots for short-term follow-up outcomes in PASCAL vs MitraClip: (A) overall mortality; (B) major adverse events; (C) severe bleeding; (D) cerebrovascular events; (E) mitral valve reintervention; (F) NYHA I-II; (G) mitral regurgitation less than or equal to 2+; (H) mitral regurgitation less than or equal to 1+. ST-FU, short-term follow-up.

 

Long-term follow-up. At long-term follow-up (Figure 4), the overall mortality incidence (8.2% vs 12.3%; OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.43-1.61; P=.58, I2=0%), major adverse events (12.7% vs 29.0%; OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.31-1.10; P=.10; I2=0%), and heart failure re-hospitalization (5.1% vs 18.6%; OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.17-1.00; P=.05; I2=0%) were comparable between PASCAL and MitraClip. No statistically significant difference in post-procedural MR less than or equal to 2+ (96.6% vs 96.3%; OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.26-3.05; P=.85; I2=0%) or MR less than or equal to 1+ (80.9% vs 68.8%; OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.96-2.72; P=.07, I2=0%) was assessed. The NYHA I-II was comparable (81.1% vs 80.0%; OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.24-1.22; P=.14; I2=0%).

 

Figure 4: Forest plots for long-term follow-up outcomes
Figure 4: Forest plots for long-term follow-up outcomes in PASCAL vs MitraClip: (A) overall mortality; (B) major adverse events; (C) heart failure rehospitalization; (D) NYHA I-II; (E) mitral regurgitation less than or equal to 2+; (F) mitral regurgitation less than or equal to 1+. LT-FU, long-term follow-up.

 

 

Discussion

The aim of our study was to assess the short- and long-term outcomes between the PASCAL and MitraClip devices in patients with significant (grades 3+/4+) symptomatic MR undergoing TEER. Figure 5 summarizes the main findings.

 

Figure 5. Main study outcomes
Figure 5. Main study outcomes.

 

Considering the more recent approval of PASCAL devices compared to MitraClip (2019 and 2008, respectively), some concerns might arise in terms of technical outcome discrepancies, such as increased implantation time or procedural success. However, our pooled analysis highlighted comparable procedural technical success rates between the 2 systems (97.0% vs 97.9%; OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.30-1.20; P=.15) with no heterogeneity (I2=0%). Nevertheless, the results were consistent at the short-term follow-up, where mitral valve interventions were comparable between the 2 groups (0.8% vs 1.1%; OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.26-2.93; P=.83, I2=0%). Although it was impossible to quantitatively assess procedural time differences between the 2 devices, 4 of the 5 included studies did not find any statistically significant difference.20-23 At the same time, the remaining study showed only that Mitraclip was a few minutes quicker than Pascal.24 One possible limitation of our findings is that the studies were conducted in experienced centers and, therefore, procedural time and success rates might differ in less experienced centers. Nevertheless, we believe that any learning curve issues will likely be overcome in the long term.

Studies have shown that the presence of residual MR following transcatheter MV repair negatively impacts prognosis, and that reducing MR to grade less than or equal to 1+ should be the primary goal.26,27 Failure to achieve this goal has been linked to poor clinical outcomes, emphasizing the importance of achieving MR less than or equal to 1+.26,27 Although PASCAL and MitraClip both target the mitral leaflets to reduce MR, the devices present differences in technical design. One of the main differences is related to the central spacer present in the PASCAL system, which serves to fill the regurgitation orifice and reduce the tension of the leaflets, possibly offering additional benefits in reducing MR and limiting the potential transmitral mean gradient increase. Our pooled analysis revealed excellent and consistent results in terms of postprocedural MR less than or equal to 2+ and MR less than or equal to 1+ and mean anterograde transmitral valve gradient without any statistically significant difference between PASCAL and MitraClip.

However, heterogeneity was severe. Looking in depth, the Mauri et al study included the largest number of patients (with a significant effect size).22 In this study, a PASCAL-based strategy resulted in more prevalent residual MR less than or equal to 1+ and reduced transmitral mean gradient greater than or equal to 5 mmHg compared to the MitraClip group. As previously shown, these conclusions were not confirmed when we pooled these data with other studies. Upon closer examination of the included studies, Mauri et al included patients from 2010 to 2018. Hence, these patients were treated with older generations of MitraClip only (NT, NTR, or XTR systems). In contrast, in the only included RCT, more than 60% of the patients were treated with the modern G4 system (NT, NTW, XT, XTW).24 These evolved devices allow independent leaflet grasping (like PASCAL) and better clip manipulation, limiting the design differences between PASCAL and MitraClip. Nevertheless, the preliminary results of the G4 MitraClip were positively evaluated in the EXPAND G4 Study, where 91% of the included patients had residual MR <=1 at 30-day follow-up.28 Indeed, we determined that the severe heterogeneity might be explained mainly by different generations of device types rather than substantial procedural outcomes or patient selection. We therefore performed a sensitivity analysis (Figure S4) excluding the Mauri et al study. Not only did the results not change, but the severe heterogeneity previously evidenced became null.

In terms of safety, PASCAL and MitraClip were associated with excellent results. Specifically, the overall mortality and MAE were low in both procedures, with comparable results between the 2 devices at short- and long-term follow-ups. Most patients improved their clinical status tremendously, with more than 4 out of 5 patients classified as NYHA I-II during long-term follow-up. However, no statistically significant differences were assessed between the PASCAL and MitraClip, demonstrating potential interchangeability of the 2 TEER systems.

Study limitations. Our study presents some limitations. First, most of the evidence was derived from observational studies. In addition, there was an important patient loss at long-term follow-up, potentially affecting the outcomes. It was not possible to have a subgroup analysis for degenerative MR and functional MR due to lack of data.

 

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety of PASCAL and MitraClip systems in patients with significant symptomatic MR undergoing TEER. The availability of 2 devices may widen TEER utilization, while competition between companies may lead to improved quality and more options for patients with less cost.

Affiliations and Disclosures

From the 1Department of Molecular Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy; 2Department of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; 3Cardiology Unit, Ospedale Maggiore, Lodi, Italy; 4Interventional Cardiology, Policlinico San Donato, Milan, Italy; 5Division of Cardiology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.

Disclosures: The Department of Cardiology of the Leiden University Medical Center received unrestricted research grants from Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, GE Healthcare and Medtronic. Jose M. Montero received a research grant from Shockwave Medical. The remaining authors report no financial relationships or conflicts of interest regarding the content herein.

Address for correspondence: Federico Oliveri, MD, University of Pavia: Universita degli Studi di Pavia, Pavia, Italy. Email: federico.md.oliveri@gmail.com

 

Supplemental Material

Figure S1. Cochrane Collaboration's tool .
Figure S1. Cochrane Collaboration's tool for randomized controlled trials risk of bias.

 

Figure S2. Forest plots for baseline characteristics
Figure S2. Forest plots for baseline characteristics in PASCAL vs MitraClip: (A) NYHA III-IV; (B) mitral regurgitation 3+; (C) mitral regurgitation 4+; (D) primary mitral regurgitation; (E) secondary mitral regurgitation.

 

Figure S3. Funnel plot
Figure S3. Funnel plot for technical success in PASCAL vs MitraClip.

 

Figure S4. Sensitivity analysis
Figure S4. Sensitivity analysis (excluding Mauri et al. study). Forest Plots for (A) mean trans-mitral valve gradient (BHD); (B) mitral regurgitation less than or equal to 1+ (BHD); (C) NYHA I-II (ST-FU); (D) mitral regurgitation less than or equal to 1+. BHD, before hospital discharge; ST-FU, short-term follow-up.

 

Supplemental Table: Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

 

References

  1. Iung B, Delgado V, Rosenhek R, et al. Contemporary presentation and management of valvular heart disease: The EURObservational Research Programme Valvular Heart Disease II Survey. Circulation. 2019;140(14):1156-1169. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.041080
  2. Nkomo VT, Gardin JM, Skelton TN, Gottdiener JS, Scott CG, Enriquez-Sarano M. Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population-based study. Lancet. 2006;368(9540):1005-1011. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69208-8
  3. Goliasch G, Bartko PE, Pavo N, et al. Refining the prognostic impact of functional mitral regurgitation in chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2018;39(1):39-46. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx402
  4. Suri RM, Vanoverschelde JL, Grigioni F, et al. Association between early surgical intervention vs watchful waiting and outcomes for mitral regurgitation due to flail mitral valve leaflets. JAMA. 2013;10(6):609-616. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.8643
  5. Jung JC, Jang MJ, Hwang HY. Meta-analysis comparing mitral valve repair versus replacement for degenerative mitral regurgitation across all ages. Am J Cardiol. 2019;123(3):446-453. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.10.024
  6. Petrus AHJ, Dekkers OM, Tops LF, Timmer E, Klautz RJM, Braun J. Impact of recurrent mitral regurgitation after mitral valve repair for functional mitral regurgitation: long-term analysis of competing outcomes. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(27):2206-2214. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz306
  7. Dziadzko V, Clavel M-A, Dziadzko M, et al. Outcome and undertreatment of mitral regurgitation: a community cohort study. Lancet. 2018;391(10124):960-969. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30473-2
  8. Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.Circulation. 2021;143(5):e35-e71. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000932
  9. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease Eur Heart J. 2022;43(7):561-632. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395
  10. Feldman T, Foster E, Glower DD, et al. Percutaneous repair or surgery for mitral regurgitation.N Engl J Med. 2011;364(15):1395-1406. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1009355
  11. Stone GW, Lindenfeld J, Abraham WT, et al. Transcatheter Mitral-Valve Repair in Patients with Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(24):2307-2318. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1806640
  12. Obadia JF, Messika-Zeitoun D, Leurent G, et al. Percutaneous Repair or Medical Treatment for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(24):2297-2306. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1805374
  13. Moher D,  Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  14. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174.
  15. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpstron MS, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 5.1.0 ed. Cochrane; 2011. https://training.cochrane.org/sites/training.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/resources/Handbook5_1/Chapter_8_Handbook_5_2_8.pdf;
  16. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603-605. doi:10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z
  17. Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, et al. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med. 2015;8(1):2-10. doi:10.1111/jebm.12141
  18. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539-1558. doi:10.1002/sim.1186
  19. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
  20. Geis NA, Schlegel P, Heckmann MB, et al. One-year results following PASCAL-based or MitraClip-based mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair. ESC Heart Fail. 2022;9(2):853-865. doi:10.1002/ehf2.13849
  21. Haschemi J, Haurand JM, Bönner F, Kelm M, Westenfeld R, Horn P. PASCAL vs MitraClip for Mitral Valve Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair: A Single-Center Real-World Experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15(9):1002-1004. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2022.02.019
  22. Mauri V, Sugiura A, Spieker M, et al. Early Outcomes of 2 Mitral Valve Transcatheter Leaflet Approximation Devices: A Propensity Score-Matched Multicenter Comparison. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15(24):2541-2551. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2022.10.008
  23. Schneider L, Markovic S, Mueller K, et al. Mitral Valve Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair Using MitraClip or PASCAL: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Comparison. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15(24):2554-2567. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2022.10.028
  24. Lim DS, Smith RL, Gillam LD, et al. Randomized Comparison of Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair for Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation in Prohibitive Surgical Risk Patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15(24):2523-2536. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2022.09.005
  25. Stone GW, Adams DH, Abraham WT, et al. Clinical Trial Design Principles and Endpoint Definitions for Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair and Replacement: Part 2: Endpoint Definitions: A Consensus Document From the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(3):308-321. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.05.049
  26. Kaneko H, Neuss M, Weissenborn J, Butter C. Impact of residual mitral regurgitation after MitraClip implantation. Int J Cardiol. 2017;227:813-819. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.10.054
  27. Buzzatti N, De Bonis, Denti P, et al. What is a “good” result after transcatheter mitral repair? Impact of 2+ residual mitral regurgitation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;151(1): 88–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.09.099
  28. Von Bardeleben RS. Contemporary clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of 1000þ patients treated with MitraClip G4: results from the EXPAND G4 post approval study. Paper presented at: Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics; September 17, 2022; Boston, MA.

 


Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement