Multimodality imaging guidance for percutaneous paravalvular leak closure: Insights from the multi-centre FFPP register. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2018;111:421 31. 5. Garc a-Fern ndez MA, Cort s M, Garc a-Robles JA, et al. Utility of real- time three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography in evaluating the success of percutaneous transcatheter closure of mitral paravalvular leaks. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010;23:26 32. 6. Nombela-Franco L, Ribeiro HB, Urena M, et al. Significant mitral regurgita- tion left untreated at the time of aortic valve replacement: a comprehen- sive review of a frequent entity in the transcatheter aortic valve replace- ment era. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2643 58. 7. Ruiz CE, Hahn RT, Berrebi A, et al. Clinical trial principles and endpoint definitions for paravalvular leaks in surgical prosthesis: an expert state- ment. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:2067 87. 8. Lang RM, Badano LP, Tsang W, et al. EAE/ASE recommendations for image acquisition and display using three-dimensional echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012;25:3 46. 9. Ruparelia N, Cao J, Newton JD, et al. Paravalvular leak closure under intracardiac echocardiographic guidance. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;91:958 65. 1. Akins CW, Bitondo JM, Hilgenberg AD, et al. Early and late results of the surgical correction of cardiac prosthetic paravalvular leaks. J Heart Valve Dis. 2005;14:792 9. 2. Kaneko T, Vassileva CM, Englum B, et al. Contemporary outcomes of re- peat aortic valve replacement: a benchmark for transcatheter valve-in- valve procedures. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:1298 304. 3. Kaneko T, Aranki S, Javed Q, et al. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement in patients <65 years old. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:117 26. 4. Jaussaud N, Gariboldi V, Grisoli D, et al. Risk of reoperation for mitral bioprosthesis dysfunction. J Heart Valve Dis. 2012;21:56 60. 5. Sorajja P, Cabalka AK, Hagler DJ, et al. 