Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair

Similar documents
Introducing the COAPT Trial

Catheter-based mitral valve repair MitraClip System

Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair: What Can We Treat and What Should We Treat

Prognostic Impact of FMR

Disclosure Statement of Financial Interest Saibal Kar, MD, FACC

Mitral Regurgitation

MitraClip World Wide Commercial Experience

GDMT for percutaneous mitral valve repair

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair and Replacement: Where is the Latest Randomized Evidence Taking US Mitral-Fr, COAPT

Τελικά επιδιόρθωση, αντικατάσταση ή clip στην ισχαιμική ανεπάρκεια Μιτροειδούς; ΒΛΑΣΗΣ ΝΙΝΙΟΣ MD MRCP ΚΛΙΝΙΚΗ ΑΓΙΟΣ ΛΟΥΚΑΣ

The Mitral Revolution: Transcatheter Repair (and Replacement?) Going Mainstream

Current status: Percutaneous mitral valve therapy

TREATMENT OF MITRAL REGURGITATION RAJA NAZIR FACC

Status Of The MitraClip: Trials (EVEREST II & COAPT) & FDA

Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair

8/31/2016. Mitraclip in Matthew Johnson, MD

Mitral Valve Disease. James Hermiller, MD, FACC, FSCAI St Vincent Heart Center Indianapolis, IN

PERCUTANEOUS MITRAL VALVE THERAPIES 13 TH ANNUAL CARDIAC, VASCULAR AND STROKE CARE CONFERENCE PIEDMONT ATHENS REGIONAL

CLIP ΜΙΤΡΟΕΙ ΟΥΣ: ΠΟΥ ΒΡΙΣΚΟΜΑΣΤΕ;

Eulogio Garcia MD Hospital Clínico San Carlos Madrid - Spain

Reshape/Coapt: do we need more? Prof. J Zamorano Head of Cardiology University Hospital Ramon y Cajal, Madrid

Chapter 24: Diagnostic workup and evaluation: eligibility, risk assessment, FDA guidelines Ashwin Nathan, MD, Saif Anwaruddin, MD, FACC Penn Medicine

ΔΙΑΔΕΡΜΙΚΗ ΑΝΤΙΜΕΤΩΠΙΣΗ ΔΟΜΙΚΩΝ ΠΑΘΗΣΕΩΝ: Ο ΡΟΛΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΑΠΕΙΚΟΝΙΣΗΣ ΣΤΟ ΑΙΜΟΔΥΝΑΜΙΚΟ ΕΡΓΑΣΤΗΡΙΟ ΣΤΗΝ ΤΟΠΟΘΕΤΗΣΗ MITRACLIP

Transcatheter Mitral Innovations, Part II. Michael Mack, M.D. Baylor Scott & White Health

Organic mitral regurgitation

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair: today and tomorrow Sponsored by Abbott. Chairperson: M. Haude Panellists: A. Al Nooryani, M.

Valvular Intervention

Percutaneous Repair for MR:

Minimally invasive therapies for the mitral valve: How will you incorporate into your clinical practice? Guilherme F.

Mitral Valve Disease, When to Intervene

Percutaneous mitral valve repair: current techniques and results

Update on Percutaneous Therapies for Structural Heart Disease. William Thomas MD Director of Structural Heart Program Tucson Medical Center

Outcomes of the Initial Experience with Commercial Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair in the U.S.

Watchman and Structural update..the next frontier. Ari Chanda, MD Cardiology Associates of Fredericksburg

Understanding the guidelines for Interventions in MR. Ali AlMasood

Advanced Mitral Valve Therapies

APOLLO TMVR Trial Update: Case Presentation

Cardiac Valve/Structural Therapies

Percutaneous Therapy for Mitral Regurgitation: Current and Future Options: Could we do better today?

Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair

Latest therapies for patients with HF. Dr AIGUL BALTABAEVA PhD, FESC, FRCP RBHT & ASPH

Update on Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair and Replacment

Use of MitraClip Beyond Everest Criteria

MitraClip in the ICCU: Which Patient will Benefit?

Who will Benefit from Percutaneous Management of Mitral Regurgitation? An Imaging Guide to Management

Burden of Mitral Regurgitation (MR) in the US Why is This Important?

HOW IMPORTANT ARE THESE ECHO MEASUREMENTS ANYWAY?

SURGICAL AND TRANSCATHETER MITRAL VALVE REPLACEMENT VS. REPAIR: COMPETITION OR SYNERGY

Investigational Device only in the U.S. Not available for sale in the U.S. ACCESS EU European Society of Cardiology

Interventional Updates 2016

Repair or Replacement

Outline 9/17/2016. Advances in Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair and Replacement. Scope of the Problem and Guidelines

Really Less-Invasive Trans-apical Beating Heart Mitral Valve Repair: Which Patients?

Percutaneous mitral valve repair: The MitraClip device

Percutaneous Mitral Valve Therapies

Euro Heart Survey New Programme Sentinel Registry Transcatheter Valve Treatment (TCVT) Carlo Di Mario, London, UK President EAPCI

Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair. Transesophageal Echo Acquisition Guide

Transcatheter mitral valve repair is considered investigational in all situations.

MitraClip Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair

MitraClip: Why, How, and For Whom?

Alec Vahanian,FESC, FRCP (Edin.) Bichat Hospital University Paris VII, Paris, France

William A. Gray MD System Chief of Cardiovascular Services, Main Line Health President, Lankenau Heart Institute Wynnewood, Pennsylvania USA

Mitral Regurgitation Epidemiology and Classification

ACCESS-EUROPE Phase I

Routine MitraClip. Image Guidance Step by Step

Preparing for Your Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair Procedure

Transcatheter Mitral & Tricuspid Therapies. Bernard J. Zovighian Corporate Vice President

Index. B B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), 76

Functional Mitral Regurgitation; therapeutic continuum overview. Michele Senni. Cardiologia 1 Scompenso e Trapianti di Cuore A.O. PAPA GIOVANNI XXIII

Edwards Cardioband Mitral Reconstruction System

Next Generation Therapies: Aortic, Mitral and Beyond

Cardioband: una chance per l insufficienza mitralica funzionale

What echo measurements are key prior to MitraClip?

Management of HOCM: Non-Surgical Options

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CLINICAL EXCELLENCE

Transcatheter Echo Guided Mitral Valve Repair with NeoChord Implantation: Results from NeoChord Independent International Registry

The FORMA Early Feasibility Study: 30-Day Outcomes of Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Therapy in Patients with Severe Secondary Tricuspid Regurgitation

Management of Secondary MR : Insights from CTSN Ischemic MR trial; COAPT and MITRA-FR:

Simultaneous Double Clipping Delivery Guide Strategy for Treatment of Severe Coaptation Failure in Functional Mitral Regurgitation

Percutaneous Treatment of Mitral Insufficiency: Present and Future

PERCUTANEOUS MITRAL VALVE REPAIR IN HIGH RISK PATIENTS - THE SWISS EXPERIENCE AFTER THE FIRST 100 PATIENTS

BrijM ainim D,FA CC ClinicalP rofessorofm edicine. FloridaAtlanticU niversity,bocar aton,fl. R egionalm edicaldirectoroft ranscathetert herapies

Μαρία Δρακοπούλου, Σοφία Βαïνά

Health Status after Transcatheter Mitral- Valve Repair in Patients with Heart Failure and Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: Results from the COAPT Trial

MITRAL STENOSIS: MANY FLAVORS Rheumatic and Calcification. Rheumatic Mitral Stenosis 76yo male

TAVI- Is Stroke Risk the Achilles Heel of Percutaneous Aortic Valve Repair?

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Interventions: Clinical Indications. Didier TCHETCHE, MD. Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France.

Professor and Chief, Division of Cardiac Surgery Chief Medical Officer, Harpoon Medical. The Houston Aortic Symposium February 23-25, 2017

Ian T. Meredith AM. MBBS, PhD, FRACP, FCSANZ, FACC, FAPSIC. Monash HEART, Monash Health & Monash University Melbourne, Australia

1. Technology Name: WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology. 3. Trade Brand of Technology: WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology

Multicentre clinical study evaluating a novel resheatable self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve system

Get Ready for Percutaneous Mitral Valve Approaches

Primary Mitral Valve Disease: Natural History & Triggers for Intervention ACC Latin American Conference 2017

LivaNova Investor Day

FY 2019 HOSPITAL CODING AND PAYMENT GUIDE

An Overview of Mainstream Structural Heart Therapies: TAVR/MitraClip/Watchman

NON SURGICAL TREATMENT OF CARDIAC DISEASE PETER J SABIA, MD FACC ASSOCIATES IN CARDIOLOGY SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND

Percutaneous Valve Interventions. Percutaneous Valve Interventions

Percutaneous Tricuspid Valve Therapies: The Next Frontier? Is the Tricuspid Valve Relevant? Data and Guidelines for TV Interventions

Steven F Bolling Professor of Cardiac Surgery University of Michigan

Transcription:

Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair MitraClip: Procedure, Data, Patient Selection Chad Rammohan, MD FACC Director, Cardiac Cath Lab El Camino Hospital Mountain View, California

Mitral Regurgitation MitraClip Transseptal and procedural technique Degenerative MR 5 year EVEREST II (ACC 2014) Prohibitive surgical risk cohort Functional MR - COAPT

MR Etiology Normal Degenerative MR Prolapse Degenerative MR Flail Functional MR Ischemic vs. nonischemic

MitraClip Concepts Facilitates proper leaflet coaptation Mechanical solution to a mechanical problem Etiology Degenerative - Anchor flail and prolapsed leaflets (similar to chordal transfer/replacement) Functional - Coapt tethered leaflets to reduce time and force required to close valve Creates tissue bridge Porcine model, 6M

The MitraClip System MitraClip Device (Clip) Clip Delivery System MitraClip System Arm Steerable Guide Handle Gripper Delivery Catheter Handle Steerable Guide, Steerable Sleeve, and Delivery Catheter Stabilizer MitraClip Device (Clip)

MitraClip Features Venous puncture Standard Percutaneous Left Atrial Access Versatile Positioning Capabilities o Adaptability to varying patient anatomy Precise MitraClip Placement Control o Re-positioning capability Allows multiple tissue releases and grasps Allows optimal MR reduction Provides option to not deploy Clip

Echo Related Valve Anatomy Use of common anatomically based vocabulary reinforces clear communication 30 0 MEDIAL 60 0 FOSSA P3 A3 A2 P2 POSTERIOR AO A1 P1 30 0 ANTERIOR LAA LATERAL

Transseptal Crossing

Tenting: Junction Between the Muscular and Membranous Septum Imaging: Bi-caval

Tenting: Posterior - Mid Aspect of Fossa Imaging: Short Axis at the Base Line of coaptation

Tenting: Superior Aspect of Fossa Imaging: 4 Chamber or 5 Chamber, Height 3.5-4.0cm 3.5-4.0 cm 3.5-4.0 cm

Puncture and Cross Fossa Imaging: Short Axis at the Base

Steering to Valve Plane

Steering

Grasping

Grasping

Grasping Technique

Deployment

Worldwide Experience Study Population N* EVEREST I (Feasibility) Feasibility patients 55 EVEREST II (Pivotal) Pre-randomized patients 60 EVEREST II (Pivotal) EVEREST II (Pivotal) Non-randomized patients (High Risk Study) Randomized patients (2:1 Clip to Surgery) 78 279 184 Clip 95 Surgery REALISM (Continued Access) Non-randomized patients 899 Compassionate/Emergency Use Non-randomized patients 66 ACCESS Europe Phase I Non-randomized patients 567 ACCESS Europe Phase II Non-randomized patients 286 Commercial Use Commercial patients 16,953 Total 19,148 +95 surgery *Data as of 12/31/2014. Source: Abbott Vascular

Commercial MitraClip Implant Experience Treating Centers: 455 Patients 1 : 17,806 Implant Rate 1 : 96% Etiology 2 Functional MR 66% Degenerative MR 21% Mixed 13% Etiology 2 Mixed 13% DMR 21% FMR 66% 1. First-time procedures only. Includes commercial patients, ACCESS I and ACCESS II patients 2. Etiology not inclusive of U.S. cases as of 04/14/2014 Data as of 12/31/2014. Source: Abbott Vascular.

Global MitraClip Procedures Data on file at Abbott Vascular as of 12/31/2014

EVEREST II RCT Aug 2005 - Nov 2008 Randomized Cohort N=279 Treated MitraClip Patients N=178 Untreated n=6 MitraClip n=15 Surgery Treated Surgery Patients N=80 N=258 Treated Patients N=30 Withdrawals N=15 N=3 Missed Visits N=2 81% Clinical Follow-Up 5-Year Analysis (N=145) 79% Clinical Follow-Up 5-Year Analysis (N=63) Median follow-up 4.93 years. 1,007 total patient-years of follow-up.

Baseline Characteristics EVEREST II RCT Characteristic MitraClip N = 184 Surgery N = 95 p-value Age (mean), years 67 66 ns Male 63% 66% ns History of CHF 91% 78% 0.005 NYHA Functional Class III/IV 51% 47% ns Functional MR Etiology 26% 27% ns Coronary Artery Disease 47% 46% ns Prior Myocardial Infarction 22% 21% ns Previous Cardiovascular Surgery 22% 19% ns Atrial Fibrillation 34% 39% ns COPD (with or without home O 2 ) 15% 15% ns Moderate to Severe Renal Disease 3% 2% ns Diabetes 8% 11% ns LV Ejection Fraction (mean), % 60 61 ns LV End Systolic Dimension (mean), cm 3.7 3.5 ns

Site-Reported Adverse Events Through 5 Years EVEREST II RCT Adverse Event Rates (%) Per Patient-Year of Follow-up S M AE Categories Cardiac Vascular Neurologic Renal M: MitraClip S: Surgery M S M S M S M S M S Index Through 30 Days 30 Days Through 1 Year 1 Year Through 2 Years 2 Years Through 3 Years 3 Years Through 4 Years 4 Years Through 5 Years

Long-Term MitraClip Device Safety EVEREST II RCT Through 1 Year # (%) of patients 1 Year to 5 Years # (%) of patients Single Leaflet Device Attachment (SLDA) 10 (6.3%) 0 (0.0%) MV stenosis 1 (0.6%) 0 (0.0%) Device Embolization 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Based on N=158 who were implanted with 1 or 2 MitraClip devices

Kaplan-Meier Freedom From Mortality EVEREST II RCT MitraClip (N=178) 93.7% 92.3% 1 year Surgery (N=80) 81.2% 79.0% 5 years

Kaplan-Meier Freedom From MV Surgery in MitraClip Group or Re-operation in Surgery Group Surgery (N=80) MitraClip (N=178) 78.9% 97.4% 1 year 74.3% 92.5% 5 years EVEREST II RCT

Mitral Regurgitation Grade EVEREST II RCT All Treated Patients (N=258) MitraClip (N=178) MR 2+ at 1 and 5 Years Surgery (N=80) MR 2+ at 1 and 5 Years p < 0.005 p < 0.005 p < 0.005 p < 0.005 2+ 81% 82% 0+ 1+ 1+ 2+ 99% 98% 0+ 2+ 0+ 3+ 2+ 3+ 3+ 1+ 3+ 1+ 2+ 4+ 3+ 4+ 3+ 4+ 2+ 4+ 2+ Baseline 1 Year N=149 Baseline 5 Years N=106 Baseline 1 Year N=66 Baseline 5 Years N=41

NYHA Functional Class EVEREST II RCT All Treated Patients (N=258) MitraClip (N=178) NYHA I/II at 1 and 5 Years Surgery (N=80) NYHA I/II at 1 and 5 Years p < 0.005 p < 0.005 p < 0.005 p < 0.005 98% 91% 88% 98% I I I I II I II I II I II I III II III II III II III II IV IV III IV III IV Baseline 1 Year N=151 Baseline 5 Years N=106 Baseline 1 Year N=66 Baseline 5 Years N=42 N = survivors with paired data; p-values for descriptive purposes only

Long-Term Durability of Clinical Success 5-Year Outcomes in Patients Who Were Alive and Free From MR 3+/4+ and MV Surgery (or Re-Operation) at 1 Year EVEREST II RCT Clinical Success Groups Outcome MitraClip (N=97) Surgery (N=64) Freedom From Death at 5 Years 87% 90% Freedom From MV Surgery (or Re-operation) at 5 Years 94% 95% MR 2+ at 5 Years 86% 97% MR 1+ at 5 Years 47% 92% NYHA Class III/IV (%) Baseline 5 Years 47% 6% 40% 3% Mean Change in LVEDV From Baseline to 5 Years -27 ml -45 ml Mean Change in Diastolic SLAD From Baseline to 5 Years 0.0 cm -0.4 cm

EVEREST II RCT 5 Year Results The EVEREST II RCT is the longest prospective follow-up of two therapies for treating MR Clinical benefits provided by MitraClip and MV surgery are durable through 5 years Reduction in MR Severity Improvement in LV Volumes and Dimensions Improvements in NYHA Functional Class Low rate of adverse events from 1 year to 5 years in both groups Beyond 6 months, the rate of MV surgery is low in the MitraClip group

Improved Functional Status and Quality of Life in Prohibitive Surgical Risk Patients With Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation Following Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair with the MitraClip System Lim et al.. JACC 2014 Jul 15;64(2):182-92. 141 high surgical risk DMR patients treated in the EVEREST Registries with 1-year follow-up available Prohibitive risk definition retrospectively applied by heart team Two cardiac surgeons experienced in MV surgery Cardiologist experienced in MV disease 127 patients were documented to meet prohibitive risk

Baseline Demographics and Comorbidities Characteristic Age (mean ± SD) Prohibitive Risk DMR N = 127 82 ± 9 years Patients over 75 years of age 84% Male Gender 55% Coronary Artery Disease 73% Prior Myocardial Infarction 24% Previous Cardiovascular Surgery 48% Atrial Fibrillation History 71% Prior Stroke 10% Diabetes 30% Moderate to Severe Renal Disease 28% Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 32% STS Mortality Risk (mean ± SD) [v2.73, replacement] 13.2 ± 7.3% SF-36 QoL Physical Component Score (mean ± SD) 32.0 ± 8.7 SF-36 QoL Mental Component Score (mean ± SD) 46.1 ± 12.5

Baseline Cardiac Comorbidities Characteristic Prohibitive Risk DMR N = 127 Congestive Heart Failure 98% NYHA Functional Class III or IV 87% LV Ejection Fraction (mean ± SD) 60.6 ± 9.5 % LV End Diastolic Volume (mean ± SD) LV Internal Diameter, systole (mean ± SD) 127.0 ± 40.5 ml 3.4 ± 0.8 cm

Percent MitraClip Implant Rate Prohibitive Risk DMR (N=127) 95.3% Implant Rate 100% 80% 4.7% 44.1% 0 MitraClip (N=6) 60% 1 MitraClip (N=56) 40% 20% 51.2% 2 MitraClips (N=65) 0%

CEC-Adjudicated Safety Events Prohibitive Risk DMR (N=127) Event (Non-Hierarchical) 30 Days 1 Year n % n % Death* 8 6.3% 30 23.6% Myocardial Infarction 1 0.8% 1 0.8% Non-elective CV Surgery for AEs 1 0.8% 1 0.8% Stroke 3 2.4% 3 2.4% New onset of permanent AF 0 0 0 0 Renal Failure 2 1.6% 5 3.9% Ventilation > 48 hours 4 3.1% 6 4.7% GI complication requiring surgery 1 0.8% 3 2.4% * No intra-procedural or cath lab deaths

Percent Patients Mitral Regurgitation Grade Through 1 Year Patients With Data Available at Follow-Up (Completers Analysis) 100 80 2+ 1+ 1+ 60 40 3+ 2+ 2+ MR 2+ in 83% of surviving patients at 1 year 20 0 4+ 3+ 3+ 4+ Baseline Discharge 1 Year

Percent Patients NYHA Functional Class Through 1 Year 100 80 II I 2+ I 60 40 III II 3+ II NYHA Class I/II in 87% of surviving patients at 1 year 20 0 IV III 4+ III Baseline 1 Year 2 Year

Hospitalizations For Heart Failure 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.67 73% Reduction p < 0.0001 0.40 0.20 0.18 0.00 1 Year Prior to MitraClip N = 127 1 Year Post Discharge N = 120

5 Year Prohibitive Risk: Summary MitraClip therapy safely reduces DMR in patients at prohibitive risk for MV surgery In this group of prohibitive risk DMR patients, MitraClip therapy provides meaningful clinical improvements Reduction of LV volumes Improvements in NYHA Functional Class Improvements in Quality of Life Reduction in Hospitalizations for Heart Failure

Degenerative MR FDA-approved indications: for the percutaneous reduction of significant symptomatic mitral regurgitation (MR 3+) due to primary abnormality of the mitral apparatus [degenerative MR] in patients who have been determined to be at a prohibitive risk for mitral valve surgery by a heart team, which includes a cardiac surgeon experienced in mitral valve disease, and in whom existing comorbidities would not preclude the expected benefit CMS National coverage decision

MR Etiology Normal Degenerative MR Prolapse Degenerative MR Flail Functional MR Ischemic vs. nonischemic

Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation COAPT Trial: Overview

Objective To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the MitraClip System for treatment of functional mitral regurgitation (FMR 3+) in symptomatic heart failure subjects who are treated per standard of care and who have been determined by the site s local heart team as not appropriate for mitral valve surgery

Trial design 430 patients enrolled at up to 75 US sites Significant FMR ( 3+ by core lab) Symptomatic heart failure subjects who are treated per standard of care Determined by the site s local heart team as not appropriate for mitral valve surgery Specific valve anatomic criteria Randomize 1:1 MitraClip N=215 Control group Standard of care N=215 Clinical and TTE follow-up: Baseline, Treatment, 1-week (phone), 1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, 60 months

Key Inclusion Criteria (i) Functional MR 3+ due to cardiomyopathy of either ischemic or non-ischemic etiology Symptomatic (NYHA class II, III or ambulatory IV) Local Site Heart Team (CT surgeon and HF specialist investigators) and the Central Eligibility Committee concur that surgery will not be offered as a treatment option and that medical therapy is the intended therapy for the subject, even if the subject is randomized to the Control group. Clinical Investigational Plan 11-512: Version 5.1, November 11, 2013. COAPT protocol approved by FDA July 27, 2012. COAPT TRIAL OVERVIEW NPL 03976 Rev E CAUTION: Investigational device. Limited by Federal (U.S.) law to investigational use only.

Key Inclusion Criteria (ii) The subject has had at least 1 HF hospitalization in the 12 months prior to enrollment and/or a corrected BNP 300 pg/ml or nt-probnp 1500 pg/ml measured within 90 days prior to registration. Subject has been adequately treated per applicable standards for CAD, LV dysfunction, MR or HF (CRT, revascularization, and/or OMT). The primary regurgitant jet is non-commissural. If secondary MR jets exist, they must be considered clinically insignificant. CK-MB obtained within prior 14 days less than local laboratory upper limit of normal (ULN) Clinical Investigational Plan 11-512: Version 5.1, November 11, 2013. COAPT protocol approved by FDA July 27, 2012. COAPT TRIAL OVERVIEW NPL 03976 Rev E CAUTION: Investigational device. Limited by Federal (U.S.) law to investigational use only.

Primary Endpoints Primary Effectiveness (min 1-year follow-up all pts) Recurrent heart failure hospitalizations Primary Safety (1 year) Composite of Single Leaflet Device Attachment (SLDA), device embolizations, endocarditis requiring surgery, Echocardiography Core Laboratory confirmed mitral stenosis requiring surgery, and any device related complications requiring non-elective cardiovascular surgery at 12 months Clinical Investigational Plan 11-512: Version 5.1, November 11, 2013. COAPT protocol approved by FDA July 27, 2012. COAPT TRIAL OVERVIEW NPL 03976 Rev E CAUTION: Investigational device. Limited by Federal (U.S.) law to investigational use only.

Patient Selection: Bottom Line Degenerative Functional Low Surgical Risk Surgical Mitral Valve Repair COAPT High Surgical Risk MitraClip COAPT