Kumar, Sant

Background: Severe mitral regurgitation (MR) in cardiogenic shock (CS) presents unique therapeutic challenges, especially in patients with prohibitive surgical risk. Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) with MitraClip offers a less invasive alternative, yet optimal strategies for hemodynamic support in this setting remain unclear. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients undergoing MitraClip implantation for severe MR and CS between 2018 and 2024 at a tertiary academic center. Of 440 screened cases, 47 met CS criteria and were stratified based on receipt of periprocedural Impella support. Clinical, procedural, and survival outcomes were compared between Impella-supported and unsupported cohorts using appropriate statistical methods. Results: Among the 47 patients, 24 received Impella support and 23 did not. The Impella group had greater illness severity, including higher rates of preprocedural intubation (75.0% vs. 43.5%) and SCAI stage D shock (50.0% vs. 13.0%). Despite these differences, procedural success was 100% in both groups. In-hospital (8.3% vs. 8.7%), 30-day (12.5% vs. 8.7%), and 1-year mortality (25.0% vs. 26.0%) were similar between Impella and non-Impella patients, respectively. Impella recipients had longer hospital stays (median 18 vs. 11 days; p=0.032) and higher 1-year readmission rates (55.0% vs. 21.7%; p=0.024), reflecting baseline acuity. There were no differences in major procedural complications or re-intervention rates. Conclusions: MitraClip implantation in CS patients supported with Impella is feasible and safe. Despite significantly worse hemodynamic profiles, outcomes were comparable to those without mechanical support. These findings suggest a potential role for tailored Impella use in expanding TEER to critically ill patients and underscore the need for prospective studies to guide support strategies in high-risk MR intervention.

Introduction: Over 6 million people in the U.S. have heart failure (HF), less than half are expected to survive beyond 5 years. The need to better stratify mortality risk in HF is recognized. Frailty is associated with mortality in HF but not routinely measured clinically. As frailty is linked to inflammation and malnutrition, we hypothesized that the Metabolic Vulnerability Index (MVX) a multimarker score of systemic inflammation (small HDL particles, GlycA) and malnutrition (leucine, valine, isoleucine, citrate), could serve as a biomarker of frailty to predict mortality risk. Methods: Clinical data and plasma were collected from 1,389 patients from a HF community cohort between 2003-2012. We measured frailty using the Rockwood Index as the proportion of deficits present out of 32 physical limitations and comorbidities. MVX was calculated from the nuclear magnetic resonance LipoProfile® test. Patients were categorized by frailty (0-0.15; 0.16-0.27; 0.28-0.78) and MVX (33.4-50, 50-60, 60-70, 70-85.8) cutpoints. Cox models estimated the association of frailty and MVX assignment with mortality, adjusted for Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic HF (MAGGIC) score, a validated clinical risk score for HF mortality. Results: Frailty and MVX scores were available in 985 patients (median age 77, IQR: 67-84; 48% women). Higher frailty was associated with higher MVX (p-trend < 0.001). The highest frailty and MVX groups experienced large increases in risk of death, after adjustment for MAGGIC score (HR=3.3, 95% CI=2.6-4.2) and (HR=2.7, 95% CI=2.1-3.5), respectively. When adjusted for one another and MAGGIC score, MVX and frailty associations with death were only minimally attenuated: frailty (HR=3.2, 95% CI=2.5-4.0) and MVX (HR=2.4, 95% CI=1.9-3.2) (Figure 1). Conclusion: In this community cohort of patients with HF, frailty and MVX are positively associated with one another. However, both indicators are independently associated with an increased risk of death and can contribute to risk stratification.