ArticleREC, interventional cardiology
Transcatheter mitral edge-to-edge repair vs optimal medical therapy in secondary mitral regurgitation: a meta-analysis.
Article in REC, interventional cardiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and objectives: Mitral regurgitation is one of the most common heart valve diseases. Valve replacement surgery is a guideline-recommended option; however, in a significant proportion of patients, this option is not feasible. In such cases, mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER) is a potential therapeutic alternative. Nevertheless, the results of a randomized clinical trial have shown divergent results. Recently, the results of the RESHAPE-HF2 trial were published, providing additional insights. The objective of this work is to evaluate whether there are any differences between performing M-TEER and keeping patients under guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines. We searched for studies across the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases until February 2025. We establish the following inclusion criteria: patients with secondary mitral regurgitation, studies comparing M-TEER plus GDMT vs GDMT alone, and who reported hospitalization due to heart failure (HF) or mortality. Results: A total of 3 randomized clinical trials meet the inclusion criteria, including a total of 1423 patients: 704 received M-TEER and 719, GDMT alone. M-TEER was associated with a reduced risk of HF-related hospitalization with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.71 (95%CI, 0.56-0.90; P = .004). We did not find any differences in all-cause mortality with a RR of 0.80 (95%CI, 0.63-1.02; P = .07). Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, M-TEER plus GDMT shows a lower risk of HF-related hospitalization vs GDMT alone. We did not find any differences in the risk of all-cause mortality or cardiac death.Registered at PROSPERO: CRD42025645047.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.