Vol 31, No 1 (2024)
Original Article
Published online: 2022-03-04

open access

Page views 1848
Article views/downloads 563
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Long-term outcomes and quality of life following implementation of dedicated mitral valve Heart Team decisions for patients with severe mitral valve regurgitation in tertiary cardiovascular care center

Szymon Jonik1, Michał Marchel1, Ewa Pędzich-Placha1, Arkadiusz Pietrasik1, Adam Rdzanek1, Zenon Huczek1, Janusz Kochman1, Monika Budnik1, Radosław Piątkowski1, Piotr Scisło1, Janusz Kochanowski1, Paweł Czub2, Radosław Wilimski2, Piotr Hendzel2, Marcin Grabowski1, Krzysztof J. Filipiak1, Grzegorz Opolski1, Tomasz Mazurek1
Pubmed: 35285514
Cardiol J 2024;31(1):62-71.


Background: This study was purposed to investigate which treatment strategy was associated with the most favourable prognosis for patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR) following Heart Team (HT)-decisions implementation. Methods: In this retrospective study, long-term outcomes of patients with severe MR qualified after HT discussion to: optimal medical treatment (OMT) alone, OMT and MitraClip (MC) procedure or OMT and mitral valve replacement (MVR) were evaluated. The primary endpoint was defined as cardiovascular (CV) death and the secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarctions (MI), strokes, hospitalizations for heart failure exacerbation and CV events during a mean (standard deviation [SD]) follow-up of 29 (15) months. Results: From 2016 to 2019, 176 HT meetings were held and a total of 157 participants (mean age [SD] = 71.0 [9.2], 63.7% male) with severe MR and completely implemented HT decisions (OMT, MC or MVR for 53, 58 and 46 patients, respectively) were included into final analysis. Comparing OMT, MC and MVR groups statistically significant differences between the implemented procedures and occurrence of primary and secondary endpoints with the most frequent in OMT-group were observed (p < 0.05). However, for interventional strategy MC was non-inferior to MVR for all endpoints (p > 0.05). General health status assessed at the end of follow-up were significantly the lowest for MVR, then for MC and the highest for OMT-group (p < 0.01). Conclusions: In the present study it was demonstrated that after careful HT evaluation of patients with severe MR at high risk of surgery, percutaneous strategy (MC) can be considered as equivalent to surgical treatment (MVR) with non-inferior outcomes.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Dziadzko V, Clavel MA, Dziadzko M, et al. Outcome and undertreatment of mitral regurgitation: a community cohort study. Lancet. 2018; 391(10124): 960–969.
  2. Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2017; 38(36): 2739–2791.
  3. Otto C, Nishimura R, Bonow R, 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).
  4. Heuts S, Olsthoorn JR, Hermans SMM, et al. Multidisciplinary decision-making in mitral valve disease: the mitral valve heart team. Neth Heart J. 2019; 27(4): 176–184.
  5. Külling M, Corti R, Noll G, et al. Heart team approach in treatment of mitral regurgitation: patient selection and outcome. Open Heart. 2020; 7(2).
  6. Tylka J, Piotrowicz R. [Quality of life questionnaire SF-36 -- Polish version]. Kardiol Pol. 2009; 67(10): 1166–1169.
  7. Tylka J. [SF-36 questionnaire - final part of discussion]. Kardiol Pol. 2010; 68(8): 985.
  8. Dal-Bianco JP, Beaudoin J, Handschumacher MD, et al. Basic mechanisms of mitral regurgitation. Can J Cardiol. 2014; 30(9): 971–981.
  9. Feldman T, Kar S, Elmariah S, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous repair and surgery for mitral regurgitation: 5-year results of EVEREST II. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 66(25): 2844–2854.
  10. Oh NA, Kampaktsis PN, Gallo M, et al. An updated meta-analysis of MitraClip versus surgery for mitral regurgitation. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2021; 10(1): 1–14.
  11. Abdulrahman M, Alsabbagh A, Kuntze T, et al. Impact of hierarchy on multidisciplinary heart-team recommendations in patients with isolated multivessel coronary artery disease. J Clin Med. 2019; 8(9): 1490.
  12. Patterson T, McConkey HZR, Ahmed-Jushuf F, et al. Long-term outcomes following Heart Team revascularization recommendations in complex coronary artery disease. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019; 8(8): e011279.
  13. Domingues CT, Milojevic M, Thuijs DJ, et al. Heart Team decision making and long-term outcomes for 1000 consecutive cases of coronary artery disease. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019; 28(2): 206–213.
  14. Bonzel T, Schächinger V, Dörge H. Description of a Heart Team approach to coronary revascularization and its beneficial long-term effect on clinical events after PCI. Clin Res Cardiol. 2016; 105(5): 388–400.
  15. Head SJ, Kaul S, Mack MJ, et al. The rationale for Heart Team decision-making for patients with stable, complex coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 2013; 34(32): 2510–2518.
  16. Rea CW, Wang TK, Ruygrok PN, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis discussed by the multidisciplinary "Heart Team" according to treatment allocation. Heart Lung Circ. 2020; 29(3): 368–373.
  17. Bakelants E, Belmans A, Verbrugghe P, et al. Clinical outcomes of heart-team-guided treatment decisions in high-risk patients with aortic valve stenosis in a health-economic context with limited resources for transcatheter valve therapies. Acta Cardiol. 2019; 74(6): 489–498.
  18. Kaier K, Gutmann A, Vach W, et al. "Heart Team" decision making in elderly patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis who underwent AVR or TAVI - a look behind the curtain. Results of the prospective TAVI Calculation of Costs Trial (TCCT). EuroIntervention. 2015; 11(7): 793–798.
  19. Coylewright M, Mack MJ, Holmes DR, et al. A call for an evidence-based approach to the Heart Team for patients with severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65(14): 1472–1480.
  20. Martínez GJ, Seco M, Jaijee SK, et al. Introduction of an interdisciplinary heart team-based transcatheter aortic valve implantation programme: short and mid-term outcomes. Intern Med J. 2014; 44(9): 876–883.
  21. Fumagalli S, Chen J, Dobreanu D, et al. The role of the Arrhythmia Team, an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to treatment of patients with cardiac arrhythmias: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey. Europace. 2016; 18(4): 623–627.
  22. Toyama K, Rader F, Kar S, et al. Iatrogenic atrial septal defect after percutaneous mitral valve repair with the MitraClip system. Am J Cardiol. 2018; 121(4): 475–479.
  23. Webb JG, Murdoch DJ, Boone RH, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter mitral valve replacement: first-in-human experience with a new transseptal system. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 73(11): 1239–1246.
  24. Regueiro A, Ye J, Fam N, et al. 2-Year outcomes after transcatheter mitral valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(16): 1671–1678.
  25. Overtchouk P, Piazza N, Granada J, et al. Advances in transcatheter mitral and tricuspid therapies. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2020; 20(1): 1.