Efficacy and safety of percutaneous mitral balloon valvotomy in patients with mitral stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims

Percutaneous mitral balloon valvotomy PMBV is an acceptable alternative to Mitral valve surgery for patients with mitral stenosis. The purpose of this study was to explore the immediate results of PMBV with respect to echocardiographic changes, outcomes, and complications, using a meta-analysis approach.

Methods

MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched (01/2012 to 10/2018) for original research articles regarding the efficacy and safety of PMBV. Two reviewers independently screened references for inclusion and abstracted data including article details and echocardiographic parameters before and 24–72 h after PMBV, follow-up duration, and acute complications. Disagreements were resolved by third adjudicator. Quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale NOS.

Results

44/990 references met the inclusion criteria representing 6537 patients. Our findings suggest that PMBV leads to a significant increase in MVA (MD = 0.81 cm²; 0.76–0.87, p < 0.00001), LVEDP (MD = 1.89 mmHg; 0.52–3.26, p = 0.007), LVEDV EDV (MD = 5.81 ml; 2.65–8.97, p = 0.0003) and decrease in MPG (MD = −7.96 mmHg; −8.73 to −7.20, p < 0.00001), LAP (MD = −10.09 mmHg; −11.06 to −9.12, p < 0.00001), and SPAP (MD = −15.55 mmHg; −17.92 to −13.18, p < 0.00001). On short term basis, the pooled overall incidence estimates of repeat PMBV, mitral valve surgery, post-PMBV severe MR, and post-PMBV stroke, and systemic thromboembolism were 0.5%, 2%, 1.4%, 0.4%, and 0.7%% respectively. On long term basis, the pooled overall incidence estimates of repeat PMBV, mitral valve surgery, post-PMBV severe MR, and post-PMBV stroke, systemic thromboembolism were 5%, 11.5%, 5.5%, 2.7%, and 1.7% respectively

Conclusion

PMBV represents a successful approach for patients with mitral stenosis as evidenced by improvement in echocardiographic parameters and low rate of complications.