FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2790403802> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2790403802 endingPage "157" @default.
• W2790403802 startingPage "152" @default.
• W2790403802 abstract "The objective of this study was to assess the results of catheter-based and surgical reinterventions in primary mitral regurgitation after failed MitraClip therapy. We report on 21 consecutive symptomatic patients with primary mitral regurgitation (median age 78 years) who underwent either repeat MitraClip therapy (n = 7) or mitral valve surgery (n = 14) after failure of the index procedure with 1-2 MitraClip implantations. At the time of reinterventions, 193 (interquartile range [IQR]: 32-622) days after the index procedure, patients had recurrent or persistent grade 3 mitral regurgitation. Early mortality at 30 days was 4.8%. Cardiac-related survival at 2 years was 85.4% (4 cardiac and 4 noncardiac deaths). Three of 7 patients with percutaneous reintervention were converted to surgery at 34, 52, and 56 days because repeat MitraClip therapy was ineffective because of pre-existing clip detachment or leaflet tear. Final therapy was biological mitral valve replacement in 14 of 21 patients (66.7%); 4 were treated with percutaneous repeat MitraClip repair (19%), and in 3 patients, surgical repairs were performed (14.3%). At follow-up with a median of 708 days, New York Heart Association class had improved significantly to class 2 (IQR: 1.0-2.5) (P = 0.0004), and the left ventricular end-diastolic diameter had decreased from 56 (IQR: 52-59) mm to 51 (48-58) mm (P = 0.0378), respectively. Recurrence of significant mitral regurgitation was absent in all but 1 patient with unsuccessful repeat MitraClip therapy who was deemed inoperable. Our data show that both repeat MitraClip and also mitral valve surgery are feasible and safe alternatives in patients without an excessively increased perioperative risk. We conclude that whenever leaflet insertion is not compromised, repeat catheter-based repair is a reasonable redo concept; in the remaining cases, surgery should be offered to the patient. The objective of this study was to assess the results of catheter-based and surgical reinterventions in primary mitral regurgitation after failed MitraClip therapy. We report on 21 consecutive symptomatic patients with primary mitral regurgitation (median age 78 years) who underwent either repeat MitraClip therapy (n = 7) or mitral valve surgery (n = 14) after failure of the index procedure with 1-2 MitraClip implantations. At the time of reinterventions, 193 (interquartile range [IQR]: 32-622) days after the index procedure, patients had recurrent or persistent grade 3 mitral regurgitation. Early mortality at 30 days was 4.8%. Cardiac-related survival at 2 years was 85.4% (4 cardiac and 4 noncardiac deaths). Three of 7 patients with percutaneous reintervention were converted to surgery at 34, 52, and 56 days because repeat MitraClip therapy was ineffective because of pre-existing clip detachment or leaflet tear. Final therapy was biological mitral valve replacement in 14 of 21 patients (66.7%); 4 were treated with percutaneous repeat MitraClip repair (19%), and in 3 patients, surgical repairs were performed (14.3%). At follow-up with a median of 708 days, New York Heart Association class had improved significantly to class 2 (IQR: 1.0-2.5) (P = 0.0004), and the left ventricular end-diastolic diameter had decreased from 56 (IQR: 52-59) mm to 51 (48-58) mm (P = 0.0378), respectively. Recurrence of significant mitral regurgitation was absent in all but 1 patient with unsuccessful repeat MitraClip therapy who was deemed inoperable. Our data show that both repeat MitraClip and also mitral valve surgery are feasible and safe alternatives in patients without an excessively increased perioperative risk. We conclude that whenever leaflet insertion is not compromised, repeat catheter-based repair is a reasonable redo concept; in the remaining cases, surgery should be offered to the patient." @default.
• W2790403802 created "2018-03-29" @default.
• W2790403802 creator A5041692047 @default.
• W2790403802 creator A5041871322 @default.
• W2790403802 creator A5049925686 @default.
• W2790403802 creator A5061138121 @default.
• W2790403802 creator A5075463721 @default.
• W2790403802 date "2018-01-01" @default.
• W2790403802 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2790403802 title "Is Surgical or Catheter-based Interventions an Option After an Unsuccessful Mitral Clip?" @default.
• W2790403802 cites W1739325045 @default.
• W2790403802 cites W1853513729 @default.
• W2790403802 cites W1994242050 @default.
• W2790403802 cites W2130007894 @default.
• W2790403802 cites W2156599683 @default.
• W2790403802 cites W2233452031 @default.
• W2790403802 doi "https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semtcvs.2018.03.005" @default.
• W2790403802 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29545033" @default.
• W2790403802 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2790403802 type Work @default.
• W2790403802 sameAs 2790403802 @default.
• W2790403802 citedByCount "21" @default.
• W2790403802 countsByYear W27904038022018 @default.
• W2790403802 countsByYear W27904038022020 @default.
• W2790403802 countsByYear W27904038022021 @default.
• W2790403802 countsByYear W27904038022022 @default.
• W2790403802 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2790403802 hasAuthorship W2790403802A5041692047 @default.
• W2790403802 hasAuthorship W2790403802A5041871322 @default.
• W2790403802 hasAuthorship W2790403802A5049925686 @default.
• W2790403802 hasAuthorship W2790403802A5061138121 @default.
• W2790403802 hasAuthorship W2790403802A5075463721 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConcept C119060515 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConcept C2777543888 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConcept C2778198053 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConcept C2780793704 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConcept C2780813298 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConcept C2781267111 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConcept C2993373945 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConceptScore W2790403802C119060515 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConceptScore W2790403802C126322002 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConceptScore W2790403802C141071460 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConceptScore W2790403802C164705383 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConceptScore W2790403802C2777543888 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConceptScore W2790403802C2778198053 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConceptScore W2790403802C2780793704 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConceptScore W2790403802C2780813298 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConceptScore W2790403802C2781267111 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConceptScore W2790403802C2993373945 @default.
• W2790403802 hasConceptScore W2790403802C71924100 @default.
• W2790403802 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2790403802 hasLocation W27904038021 @default.
• W2790403802 hasLocation W27904038022 @default.
• W2790403802 hasOpenAccess W2790403802 @default.
• W2790403802 hasPrimaryLocation W27904038021 @default.
• W2790403802 hasRelatedWork W2031978647 @default.
• W2790403802 hasRelatedWork W2067965193 @default.
• W2790403802 hasRelatedWork W2078312012 @default.
• W2790403802 hasRelatedWork W2084899229 @default.
• W2790403802 hasRelatedWork W2754713479 @default.
• W2790403802 hasRelatedWork W2791644035 @default.
• W2790403802 hasRelatedWork W2890102028 @default.
• W2790403802 hasRelatedWork W2898474130 @default.
• W2790403802 hasRelatedWork W2899432253 @default.
• W2790403802 hasRelatedWork W4290091347 @default.
• W2790403802 hasVolume "30" @default.
• W2790403802 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2790403802 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2790403802 magId "2790403802" @default.
• W2790403802 workType "article" @default.