Transcatheter Mitral Edge-to-Edge Repair in Patients with Primary or Secondary Mitral Regurgitation


( Last Updated : October 19, 2021)
Project Line:
Health Technology Review
Project Sub Line:
Rapid Review
Project Number:
RC1386-000 - RD0062-000

Details


Question

  1. What is the clinical effectiveness of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair in patients with primary or secondary mitral regurgitation?
  2. What is the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair in patients with primary or secondary mitral regurgitation?

Key Message

Four systematic reviews (SRs) and 6 retrospective cohort studies provided evidence for the clinical effectiveness of transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) versus open heart conventional surgical mitral valve repair or replacement (SMVR) in patients with primary or secondary mitral regurgitation (MR). No relevant evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of TMVR versus SMVR in patients with primary or secondary MR was identified; therefore, no summary can be provided.

There was evidence indicating a statistically significant difference in favour of TMVR over SMVR regarding the odds of post-procedure bleeding, need for permanent pacemaker implantation, 30-day readmission, and a shorter duration of hospitalization.

There was evidence suggesting a statistically significant difference in favour of SMVR over TMVR regarding the odds of recurrent MR, the need for reoperation, and mortality rate (i.e., during hospitalization, at 1 year, and > 3 years). Also, compared with TMVR, the likelihood of residual MR grade > 2 or freedom from MR grade ≥ 2 or ≥ 3 at 4 years was statistically significantly lower or higher, respectively, with SMVR.

Evidence regarding the comparative clinical effectiveness of TMVR versus SMVR concerning stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), cardiogenic shock, and death during hospitalization was conflicting and inconclusive.

There was no evidence of a significant difference between the 2 interventions regarding overall mortality or mortality at 5 years, overall survival, freedom from cardiac death at 4 years, cardiac arrest, acute myocardial infarction (MI), and respiratory or vascular complications.

A major limitation of the evidence was that it derives from studies of low or unknown quality and risk of bias, Furthermore, all the findings are confounded by differences in patient selection, which reflect the approved indications for the interventions but prevent a direct comparison between the TMVR and SMVR groups.