Evaluating Mitral TEER in the Management of Moderate Secondary Mitral Regurgitation Among Heart Failure Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Moderate secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR) represents a subgroup of heart failure (HF) patients with treatment restricted to medical therapy. Outcomes in patients with moderate SMR treated with mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER) are less well known. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of M-TEER in subjects with moderate SMR using the EXPANDed studies. METHODS: One-year outcomes in subjects from the EXPANDed studies (EXPAND [A Contemporary, Prospective Study Evaluating Real-world Experience of Performance and Safety for the Next Generation of MitraClip Devices] and EXPAND G4 [A Post-Market Study Assessment of the Safety and Performance of the MitraClip G4 System] MitraClip studies) with baseline moderate SMR (2+), per echocardiographic core laboratory (ECL) assessment, were compared with subjects with baseline severe SMR (≥3+). RESULTS: There were 335 subjects with moderate SMR and 525 with severe SMR at baseline per ECL review. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 subgroups. After treatment with M-TEER, significant MR reduction was achieved in both groups. Significant left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling was observed through 1 year, with a >20 mL decrease in LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes on average in the moderate SMR group. Significant 1-year improvements in NYHA functional class (>78% NYHA functional class I or II) and quality of life (>20 points on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Overall Summary) were observed in subjects with moderate SMR. Similarly, low rates of major adverse events, all-cause mortality, and HF hospitalizations were observed between the 2 subgroups through 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In the EXPANDed studies, subjects with moderate SMR treated with M-TEER had improvements similar to subjects with severe SMR in quality of life and positive LV remodeling at 1 year. Future studies are needed to evaluate if M-TEER would be beneficial for HF patients with moderate SMR.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".