4.1 Article

Immediate and Follow-Up Results of Repeat Percutaneous Mitral Balloon Commissurotomy for Restenosis After a Succesful First Procedure

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8175.2010.01150.x

Keywords

mitral restenosis; percutaneous mitral commissurotomy; prognosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The widespread use of percutaneous mitral commissurotomy (PMC) has led to an increase in restenosis cases. The data regarding follow-up results of repeat PMC are quite limited. The aim of this retrospective analysis is to evaluate the immediate and midterm results of the second PMC, in patients with symptomatic mitral restenosis after a succesful first procedure. Methods: Twenty patients (95% female, mean age 37 +/- 4 years) who have undergone a second PMC, 6.3 +/- 2.5 years after a first successful intervention built the study group. All were in sinus rhythm, with a mean Wilkins score of 8.5 +/- 1.2. Results: The valve area increased from 1.2 +/- 0.2 to 1.9 +/- 0.2 cm2 and mean gradient decreased from 10.5 +/- 3.4 to 6.1 +/- 1.1 mmHg. There were no complications except for a transient embolic event without sequela (5%) and two cases (10%) of severe mitral regurgitation. The immediate success rate was 90%. The mean follow-up was 70 +/- 29 months (36-156 months). The 5-year restenosis and intervention (repeat PMC or valve replacement) rates were 9.1 +/- 5.2% and 3.6 +/- 3.3%, respectively. The intervention free 5-year survival in good functional capacity (New York Heart Association [NYHA] I-II) was 95.1 +/- 5.5% and restenosis and intervention free 5-year survival with good functional capacity was 89.7 +/- 6.8%. Conclusions: Although from a limited number of selected patients, these findings indicate that repeat PMC is a safe and effective method, with follow-up results similar to a first intervention and should be considered as the first therapeutic option in suitable patients. (Echocardiography 2010;27:765-769).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available