Why did coapt win while mitra-FR failed? Defining the appropriate patient population for MitraClip

Kimberly Atianzar; Ming Zhang; Zachary Newhart; Sameer Gafoor

doi:10.15420/icr.2018.40.1

Why did coapt win while mitra-FR failed? Defining the appropriate patient population for MitraClip

Kimberly Atianzar, Ming Zhang, Zachary Newhart, Sameer Gafoor

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

28 Scopus citations

Abstract

In 2018, the world of functional mitral regurgitation changed with the presentation of two trials - Multicentre Study of Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair MitraClip Device in Patients With Severe Secondary Mitral Regurgitation (MITRA-FR) and Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation (COAPT). The trials, which seemed to point in two different directions, raised significant questions for the field. This article looks at the differences in effective regurgitant area, guideline-directed medical therapy, patient selection, technical clues and other reasons why the trials had similar aims but very different findings.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	45-47
Number of pages	3
Journal	Interventional Cardiology Review
Volume	14
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.15420/icr.2018.40.1
State	Published - 2019
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

COAPT
Congestive heart failure
Effective orifice area
Functional mitral regurgitation
Heart failure
MITRA-FR
Mitral regurgitation
Optimal medical therapy
Secondary mitral regurgitation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Access to Document

10.15420/icr.2018.40.1

Cite this

@article{4188c0d8e70949479cfedc7cb352915b,

title = "Why did coapt win while mitra-FR failed? Defining the appropriate patient population for MitraClip",

abstract = "In 2018, the world of functional mitral regurgitation changed with the presentation of two trials - Multicentre Study of Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair MitraClip Device in Patients With Severe Secondary Mitral Regurgitation (MITRA-FR) and Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation (COAPT). The trials, which seemed to point in two different directions, raised significant questions for the field. This article looks at the differences in effective regurgitant area, guideline-directed medical therapy, patient selection, technical clues and other reasons why the trials had similar aims but very different findings.",

keywords = "COAPT, Congestive heart failure, Effective orifice area, Functional mitral regurgitation, Heart failure, MITRA-FR, Mitral regurgitation, Optimal medical therapy, Secondary mitral regurgitation",

author = "Kimberly Atianzar and Ming Zhang and Zachary Newhart and Sameer Gafoor",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} RADCLIFFE CARDIOLOGY 2019",

year = "2019",

doi = "10.15420/icr.2018.40.1",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "14",

pages = "45--47",

journal = "Interventional Cardiology Review",

issn = "1756-1477",

publisher = "Radcliffe Cardiology",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why did coapt win while mitra-FR failed? Defining the appropriate patient population for MitraClip

AU - Atianzar, Kimberly

AU - Zhang, Ming

AU - Newhart, Zachary

AU - Gafoor, Sameer

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © RADCLIFFE CARDIOLOGY 2019

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - In 2018, the world of functional mitral regurgitation changed with the presentation of two trials - Multicentre Study of Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair MitraClip Device in Patients With Severe Secondary Mitral Regurgitation (MITRA-FR) and Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation (COAPT). The trials, which seemed to point in two different directions, raised significant questions for the field. This article looks at the differences in effective regurgitant area, guideline-directed medical therapy, patient selection, technical clues and other reasons why the trials had similar aims but very different findings.

AB - In 2018, the world of functional mitral regurgitation changed with the presentation of two trials - Multicentre Study of Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair MitraClip Device in Patients With Severe Secondary Mitral Regurgitation (MITRA-FR) and Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation (COAPT). The trials, which seemed to point in two different directions, raised significant questions for the field. This article looks at the differences in effective regurgitant area, guideline-directed medical therapy, patient selection, technical clues and other reasons why the trials had similar aims but very different findings.

KW - COAPT

KW - Congestive heart failure

KW - Effective orifice area

KW - Functional mitral regurgitation

KW - Heart failure

KW - MITRA-FR

KW - Mitral regurgitation

KW - Optimal medical therapy

KW - Secondary mitral regurgitation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072266158&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85072266158&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.15420/icr.2018.40.1

DO - 10.15420/icr.2018.40.1

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85072266158

SN - 1756-1477

VL - 14

SP - 45

EP - 47

JO - Interventional Cardiology Review

JF - Interventional Cardiology Review

IS - 1

ER -

Why did coapt win while mitra-FR failed? Defining the appropriate patient population for MitraClip

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this