Mortality Associated with Proportionality of Secondary Mitral Regurgitation After Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair: MFIRE Registry

INTRODUCTION

Unlike primary mitral regurgitation (MR), surgical intervention for secondary MR (also known as functional MR) has been shown to increase the quality of life but not extend survival.^1,2 In these challenging patients transcatheter repair techniques have been explored as alternative treatment options and are preferred in appropriately selected patients. The largest transcatheter experience has been with the mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge leaflet repair (m-TEER) technique with the commercially-available MitraClip® device. In 2013, the FDA approved MitraClip for prohibitive surgical risk patients with primary MR based on the results of the EVEREST Trials and REALISM Registry.^3-6 In 2019, this m-TEER approval was extended to selected patients with significant secondary MR who remain symptomatic despite maximally tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy.⁶

The FDA approval for secondary MR treatment with MitraClip integrates the results of two randomized landmark trials, COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) and MITRA-FR (Percutaneous Repair with the MitraClip Device for Severe Functional/Secondary Mitral Regurgitation).^1,2 However, these trials have shown conflicting results of mitral valve m-TEER in patients with secondary MR and reduced ejection fraction.

The MITRA-FR study did not demonstrate a reduction of the primary combined endpoint of all-cause death and unplanned hospitalization for heart failure at 1-year follow-up.² In contrast, the COAPT trial demonstrated significant reductions hospitalizations for heart failure and all-cause mortality over a 2-year follow-up.¹

The paradigm of proportionate and disproportionate MR has been proposed as a potential rationale to reconcile these conflicting trial results.^7-9 This concept suggests that patients enrolled in the MITRA-FR trial had MR severity that was predominantly proportional to the degree of LV enlargement (i.e. “proportionate MR”) with a smaller EROA and larger LVEDV leading to a reduced EROA/LVEDV ratio.^7-9 In contrast, COAPT had enrolled patients whose effective regurgitant orifice (EROA) was larger but whose LV end-diastolic volumes (LVEDV) were smaller than those in MITRA-FR leading to a higher EROA/LVEDV ratio.^7-9 Accordingly, the severity of MR was greater than could be accounted for by the degree of LV dilation (i.e. “disproportionate MR”, defined by these authors as an EROA/LVEDV>0.14 mm2/mL).^7-9 However, questions have been raised about the volume measurements in the COAPT trial, suggesting an underestimation of LVEDV or an overestimation of the EROA.^10,11 In addition, this model lacks enough patient-level data.¹² More recently, registry-based studies have failed to show a consistent association between EROA/LVEDV and mortality.^13-15

Here, we describe the association between MR proportionality, as quantified by the continuous EROA/LVEDV ratio, and mortality among patients with secondary MR and LVEF ≤55% undergoing m-TEER in the North American Mitraclip for Functional Mitral Regurgitation (M-FIRE) registry.

METHODS

This is a multi-center retrospective study. This study received a certificate of exemption from the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board (HUM00191906, Ann Arbor, MI). As no patient care interventions were involved, signed patient consent was waived. N Duggal had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for its integrity and the data analysis. We included registry data from 11 MitraClip centers (Appendix 1). We included all adult patients (>18 years) with symptomatic (New York Heart Association II, III, IV) MR assessed by echocardiography within 3-6 months of undergoing m-TEER with the MitraClip™ device, and left ventricular ejection fraction <55%.¹⁶ Patients were excluded if they had concomitant primary/degenerative MR (prolapse/flail leaflets), secondary MR predominantly driven by mitral annular dilatation (atrial FMR) with presence of normal ventricular function, prior mitral valve leaflet surgery, cardiogenic shock requiring need for mechanical support preoperatively, status 1 heart transplant listed or previous heart transplant, or active endocarditis or evidence of intracardiac thrombus.

All studies were interpreted by expert echocardiographers at large, tertiary care institutions, and the severity of MR before and after the intervention was determined based on the multi-parametric approach and quantitation methods recommended by the American Society of Echocardiography guidelines.^16-18 MR was classified using a 4-grade system as recommended by the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium: mild (1+), moderate (2+), moderate-severe (3+), or severe (4+).¹⁹ Left ventricular internal dimensions in systole and diastole were obtained via the parasternal long-axis view in transthoracic echocardiograms.. The left ventricular volumetric measurements were obtained using two-dimensional Simpson’s method of discs.¹⁷ The follow up studies were transthoracic studies and assessment of MR was assessed by post-procedure valvular regurgitation guidelines.¹⁸

RESULTS

STUDY POPULATION AND BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS

In eleven American tertiary care heart valve centers, 525 patients were treated with m-TEER for secondary MR between 2014 and 2020 and were included in the M-FIRE registry. After excluding 33 patients (6%) with unknown mortality status, the primary analysis consisted of 492 patients. At one-year follow-up, 108 (22%) had died and 384 (78%) were alive. The baseline characteristics of the patients who were alive or dead at one-year post-procedure are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The majority of patients were male (63%), with a history of hypertension (84%). Ischemic cardiomyopathy was the most common etiology of MR (51% of patients). Most patients were NYHA functional class III and IV, 61% and 21%, respectively. Pre-procedural MR severity was 3+ in 122 patients (23%) and 4+ in 383 patients (73%) (Table 3). EROA/LVEDV values varied widely with median=0.19, interquartile range [0.12,0.28] mm²/mL, and 187 (36%) patients had values <0.15 mm²/mL(Figure 1). Post-procedural MR severity was much improved, being 1+ or less in 367 patients (74%), 2+ in 99 patients (20%), 3+ in 16 patients (3%), and 4+ in 10 patients (2%).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 1.

Patient Characteristics – Categorical Factors

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 2.

Patient Characteristics -Continuous Factors.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 3.

Patient Echocardiography Measurements

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Histogram showing the frequencies of the effective regurgitant orifice area divided by the left ventricular end diastolic volume (EROA/LVEDV) sizes. Median=0.19 and interquartile range [0.12, 0.28] mm²/mL. 187 (36%) patients had values <0.15 mm²/mL

DISCUSSION

We found that after adjusting for patient characteristics, STS predicted replacement risk and the echocardiographic measurement of Ln(EROA/LVEDV) was associated with mortality. We found that the association was very steep (Graphic Abstract) at lower values of EROA/LVEDV, but became flatter at higher values, suggestive of an elbow at ∼0.15 mm²/mL but no plateau or cutoff. Our findings suggest that despite a good repair, as measured by residual MR and mitral gradient, the pre-m-TEER pathology with patients having lower EROA/LVEDV values have long-lasting effects on mortality. Study is needed to determine how best to treat these high-risk patients. Our findings of an elbow at ∼0.15 mm²/mL also suggest that the mechanisms associated with MR and m-TEER mortality may differ consistent with the proportionality theory.

Two randomized controlled trials published in 2018 examining m-TEER in patients with chronic heart failure and secondary MR noted conflicting results. In the MITRA-FR trial m-TEER did not reduce the risk of death or hospitalization for heart failure at 2 year follow up. On the contrary, COAPT trial led to significant reduction in mortality and hospitalization for heart failure over the 2 year follow up.^1,2 Numerous hypotheses have been discussed as plausible explanations for the discordant results of these two trials. In addition to noting the different definitions of severe secondary MR and differences in baseline LV volumes between these trials, there has been much interest in determining whether a severity of MR that is disproportionate to the degree of LV dilatation could predict clinical outcomes. Grayburn et al. developed a pathophysiologic premise that the two trials enrolled different patient populations and that EROA/LVEDV ratio could be useful in clinical decision-making.⁷ They noted in MITRA-FR that MR severity could be explained by the degree of LV enlargement, i.e., proportionate MR with low EROA/LVEDV which would likely respond to optimization of medical therapy. Whereas, in COAPT, MR severity was much greater than could be accounted for by degree of LV enlargement, i.e., disproportionate MR with high EROA/LVEDV ratios and likely to benefit from m-TEER. These authors designated proportionate MR by an EROA/LVEDV of “roughly <0.14 to 0.15 mm²/mL” and proposed this metric to help differentiate between disproportionate and proportionate MR.⁷

Several studies investigating this hypothesis, however, have demonstrated limitations on its ability to help identify those patients most likely to benefit from m-TEER. Orban et al. divided the patients in a large multicenter European registry (EuroSMR) of over 1000 patients into tertiles of EROA/LVEDV (<0.115, between 0.115 and 0.165, and >0.165 mm²/mL) and found only a small increased 2-year mortality in the group with EROA/LVEDV <0.115 mm²/mL but no difference between the other 2 groups¹³ In a multicenter registry study, Ooms et al. investigated several EROA/LVEDV cutoffs before settling on the median value 0.13 mm²/mL.¹⁴. They found no difference in 2-year mortality between the 2 groups. Similarly, Adamo et al. in a smaller retrospective multicenter registry noted no independent prognostic value in EROA/LVEDV, when dichotomized at the median value 2.25 cm²/L, which is equal to 0.225 mm²/mL.¹⁵ Furthermore, post hoc analysis of MITRA-FR noted neutral impact of m-TEER above and below numerous EROA/LVEDV ratios.²² Lastly, post hoc analysis of COAPT failed to demonstrate that EROA/LVEDV appropriately identified responders to m-TEER.²³ Our study differs from these studies by analyzing EROA/LVEDV as a continuous variable, rather than dichotomizing it. Rarely are there abrupt or dichotomous outcomes from a physiologic parameter. Instead, the probability of the outcome varies smoothly as the physiologic parameter changes. Dichotomizing EROA/LVEDV creates the appearance of an abrupt change at the cutoff, loses information and statistical power (equivalent to losing more than one-third of the patients), and creates false dichotomies, such that all values on the same side of the cutoff have the same risk.^24-26 Instead, we found that the risk associated with EROA/LVEDV continuously varies, but that the rate at which risk varies depends on the EROA/LVEDV value. At low values of EROA/LVEDV, the change in risk for a given change in EROA/LVEDV is larger than it is at a larger EROA/LVEDV. Hence small differences in measurement of proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) to estimate EROA will lead to larger changes in estimated risk at low values of EROA/LVEDV than at higher values of EROA/LVEDV.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the M-FIRE registry, we demonstrated that proportionality, as defined by EROA/LVEDV, provides prognostication of mortality risk after m-TEER. We found that the association was very steep (Graphic Abstract) at lower values of EROA/LVEDV, became flatter at higher values, but without a plateau or cutoff. Our findings contribute to the ongoing debate while providing new insights. Equally, our findings call for further investigation in prospective studies. In conclusion, we found that lower values of Ln(EROA/LVEDV) are associated with higher 1 year mortality.

Sources of Funding

No forms of financial support were involved in the work

Disclosures

Christopher P Kovach MD – No disclosures to report.

D Scott Lim MD – Dr Lim receives institutional grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Corvia, Edwards, Medtronic, and Trisol. He is a consultant for Philips, Valgen, and Venus.

Deepa Raghunathan MD – No disclosures to report. Edward A Gill MD – No disclosures to report.

Enrique Garcia-Sayan MD – No disclosures to report.

Evelio Rodriguez MD – Dr. Rodriguez is a consultant and speaker for Abbott. He receives research funding from Abbott.

Firas E Zahr MD – Dr. Zahr is a consultant and on the advisory board for Medtronic. He receives educational and research grants from Medtronic and Edwards. He receives educational grants from Siemens.

Flora M Li MD – No disclosures to report.

Gorav Ailawadi MD – Dr. Ailawadi is a consultant for Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards, Gore, Anteris, Atricure, CryoLife, Philips, Johnson & Johnson

Graciela B Mentz PhD – No disclosures to report.

Jason H Rogers MD – Dr. Rogers receives research/institutional grants from Abbott and Boston Scientific. He is a consultant for Abbott, Baylis, and Boston Scientific.

Lily Chen MD – Dr. Chen is a consultant for Philips, Abbott, and Akura Medical. M Andrew Morse MD – Dr Morse previously served as a consultant for Abbott.

Mani A Vannan MD – Dr Vannan receives research support and speakers bureau from Abbott – all payments to the Piedmont Heart Institute, not to self.

Marcella A Calfon Press MD, PhD – No disclosures to report. Mark Reisman MD – No disclosures to report.

Michael Morcos MD – No disclosures to report. Milo C Engoren MD – No disclosures to report. Neal M Duggal MD – No disclosures to report

Nishtha Sodhi MD – Dr. Sodhi is a consultant for Medtronic and Boston Scientific.

Paul Sorajja MD – Dr. Sorajja is a consultant for 4C Medical, Anteris, Abbott Structural, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Evolution Medical, Foldax, GLG, Medtronic, Phillips, Siemens, Shifamed, WL Gore, vDyne, xDot.

Pradeep K Yadav MD – Dr. Yadav is consultant and speaker for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific. He sits on the advisory board for Dasi Simulations.

Scott M Chadderdon MD – Dr Chadderdon is a consultant for Medtronic and Edwards. He receives a research grant from GE Healthcare.

Stanley J Chetcuti MD – Dr. Chetcuti is a consultant for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. He receives research grants from Jena, Abbott, Edwards, Gore, Medtronic and Boston Scientific.

Yuan Yuan MS – No disclosures to report.