Two-Year Follow Up After Surgical Versus Percutaneous Paravalvular Leak Closure: A Non-Randomized Analysis

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid



Percutaneous closure of paravalvular leak (PVL) has emerged as an alternative treatment. Predictors of survival and procedural success are unknown.


To review our experience in the treatment of PVL and evaluate efficacy, mortality, predictors of success, and outcomes.


Retrospective review of percutaneous PVL procedures between years 2008 and 2014. Survival and results were compared with a control cohort of surgical patients.


Percutaneous closure was attempted in 51 patients. The surgical group had 36 patients. Defects were perimitral in 67 patients (77%). Mean follow-up (FU) was 784.5 days. After propensity score analysis in-hospital mortality was higher in the surgical group (30.6% vs. 9.8%, OR 6, P 0.01). Clinical improvement was higher in the percutaneous group (71.4% vs. 36.4%, P 0.002). Multivariate analysis showed normal creatinine (OR 15, P < 0.001) as independent predictor of clinical improvement. For the composite end-point of all-cause mortality or readmission, older age (OR 10.7, P 0.001), renal failure, (OR 18, P < 0.01), poor functional class and the absence of clinical improvement (OR 3.9, P < 0.001) were related with a higher risk. There were no differences in survival free from the composite end-point according to the treatment received (surgical or percutaneous).


Percutaneous PVL closure has a reasonable rate of success and low complication rates, and results compare favorably with surgical treatment. Older patients and those with poor functional class or renal failure (RF) showed a worse prognosis even after a successful closure. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles