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 journalArticle

8 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 languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)45-47
Number of pages3
JournalInterventional Cardiology Review
Volume14
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

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

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Why did coapt win while mitra-FR failed? Defining the appropriate patient population for MitraClip'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this