Article Text

Download PDFPDF
What is a better measure of regurgitant severity in secondary mitral regurgitation by echocardiography?
  1. Kenya Kusunose
  1. Cardiovascular Medicine, Tokushima University Hospital, Tokushima, Japan
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kenya Kusunose, Cardiovascular Medicine, Tokushima University Hospital, Tokushima 770-8503, Japan; kusunosek{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) is a hot topic of cardiovascular field after two randomised trials of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair in patients with secondary MR—Multicenter Study of Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair MitraClip Device in Patients with Severe Secondary MR (MITRA-FR) and Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional MR (COAPT).1 2 The trials had similar aims, but in COAPT trial, MitraClip was associated with decreased risk of death and hospitalisation for heart failure, and in MITRA-FR, the intervention was not effectiveness for the prognosis. Many investigators try to clarify the difference between two trials.3 4 One possible explanation is the different cohort study between the two trials. From the standpoints of haemodynamic status, the effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA) can be estimated from left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and regurgitant fraction (RF) based on the Gorlin hydraulic orifice equation. For example, in a patient with LVEDV of 230 mL, LVEF of 30% and RF of 50%, EROA can be estimated as around 0.3 cm2. If the actual EROA is over the estimated EROA from LVEDV, LVEF and RF, this haemodynamic status …

View Full Text


  • Contributors KK is the sole author of this editorial.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles