Residual versus recurrent mitral regurgitation after transcatheter mitral valve edge-to-edge repair

Background The number of MtraClip procedures is increasing, and consequently, the number of patients with residual or recurrent mitral regurgitation (MR). We aimed to characterize patients who had residual versus recurrent MR after MitraClip and report the outcomes of different treatment strategies. Methods From 2012 to 2020, 167 patients had MitraClip. Out of them, 16 patients (9.5%) had residual mitral regurgitation (MR), and 27 patients (16.2%) had recurrent MR. Results The median age in patients with residual MR was 67.5 (59-73) years versus 69 (61-78) years in patients with recurrent MR (p = .87). The etiology of mitral valve disease was functional in 13 patients (81.3%) and 22 patients (84.6%) in residual versus recurrent MR patients (p > .99). Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator implantation was higher in patients with residual MR (p = .02). Survival was 93.7% at 1 year, 76.4% at 3 years versus 92.5% at 1 year, and 84.5% at 3 years in residual versus recurrent MR (p = .69). Two patients in the residual MR group had re-clip, and three had surgery, and in the recurrent MR group, one patient had re-clip, and two patients had surgery (p = .23). Patients who had re-clip were older (p = .09). Surgery was associated with 100% survival at 5 years, 63% after medical therapy and the worst survival was reported in re-clip patients (p = .007). Conclusion The outcomes of patients with residual versus recurrent mitral regurgitation after MitraClip were comparable. Survival could be improved with surgery compared with medical therapy and re-clip.