Percutaneous paravalvular leak closure (PVLc) has emerged as an alternative to surgery. It remains a technically challenging procedure. We aim to compare outcomes after mitral and aortic PVLc.

We analyzed data from PVLc procedures performed over the 2first years of inclusion in the FFPP (Fermeture de Fuite Périprothétique) study, a prospective observational industry-independent cohort study which started in January 2017.

We analyzed 147 PVLc (99mitral–48aortic), performed in 127patients (1 procedure in 109patients, 2 in 16 and 3 in 2) included in 22centers among 3countries (France, Poland and Belgium). Age (69±10 versus 69±11 yo), left ventricular ejection fraction (56 versus 51%), Euroscore2 (9 versus 7.6) and rate of mechanical valve (56.7% versus 41.7%, P=0.1) were not significantly different among mitral and aortic groups. All patients had heart failure and/or hemolytic anemia. Hemolysis was more common in mitral PVL (62 versus 43%, P=0.04). A mean of 1.4 (min 1, max 3) and 1.8 (min 1 max 5) devices were respectively required for technically successful aortic and mitral PVLc. No complication was reported in procedures with failure of device implantation. Aortic PVLc were faster than mitral PVLc (1h18 versus 2h20), with a trend towards a higher rate of technical success (96% versus 87%, P=0.1) and fewer rate of major adverse events (worsening hemolysis, stroke, life threatening events and deaths; 2% versus 14%, P=0.02). At 1month follow-up, events were reported in 2% of patients (blood transfusion for hemolysis) versus 26.2% (deaths 3.3%; hemolysis 14.8%; heart failure 3.3%; heart failure and hemolysis 4.9%) after successful aortic and mitral PVLc respectively, P=0.6.

Mitral PVLc is a more complex procedure than aortic PVLc, with a lower success rate and a higher risk of peri-procedural and one-month severe adverse events. Longer follow-up data are expected and will be available from this on-going study.