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 | |
| State | Published - 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
Atianzar, K., Zhang, M., Newhart, Z., & Gafoor, S. (2019). Why did coapt win while mitra-FR failed? Defining the appropriate patient population for MitraClip. Interventional Cardiology Review, 14(1), 45-47. https://doi.org/10.15420/icr.2018.40.1