Treatment of Functional Mitral Regurgitation in Chronic Heart Failure: Can We Get A ‘Proof of Concept’ from the MITRA-FR and COAPT TRIALS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) is associated with poor outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). However, it is not clear whether FMR is just a consequence of left ventricular (LV) remodelling or a factor contributing to cardiomyopathy progression. There will be more clarity about this controversy when the effects of FMR correction on outcomes will be shown. FMR correction can be performed surgically or, more often, percutaneously with the MitraClip procedure. MitraClip is the most widely used device with more than 70 000 implants performed to date. Observational studies suggest that MitraClip treatment of FMR is safe and associated with improved symptoms, quality of life and functional status in HF patients. Two recently randomized controlled clinical trials have investigated the impact of MitraClip on the outcomes of HF patients: Percutaneous Repair with the MitraClip Device for Severe Functional/Secondary Mitral Regurgitation (MITRA-FR) and Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation (COAPT). Both trials randomized patients to MitraClip plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) or GDMT alone. No reduction in the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalizations was shown in MITRA-FR, whereas a significant reduction in HF hospitalizations (primary endpoint) as well as in mortality alone were shown in COAPT. The aim of this review is to summarize the pathophysiology, prevalence, prognostic role and management of FMR, focusing on the differences between MITRA-FR and COAPT and trying to provide possible explanations for the diverging results. We speculate that the two trials should be interpreted as complementary rather than opposite. Patients with severe FMR (effective regurgitant orifice area > 30 mm2) despite maximum tolerated GDMT (including cardiac resynchronization therapy), and without too advanced cardiomyopathy seem to be the best candidates for MitraClip treatment. MITRA-FR and COAPT provide us a long awaited ‘proof of concept’: FMR may be considered a leading actor in cardiomyopathy progression rather than a mere marker of severity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".