Why the study?
Does the Coapsys device reduce functional mitral regurgitation at optimal tightening levels in a canine model of pacing-induced MR?
Does the Coapsys device reduce functional mitral regurgitation at optimal tightening levels in a canine model of pacing-induced MR?
The Coapsys device effectively reduces functional mitral regurgitation in a canine model without compromising forward stroke volume up to a 35% tightening level.
Supports Coapsys testing in functional MR models; leaves open clinical translation pending human trials.
We have reported that the Myocor Coapsys (Myocor, Inc, Maple Grove, MN) device treated functional mitral regurgitation (MR) by reducing mitral annular dimension and repositioning papillary muscles. This study was conducted to evaluate the optimal Coapsys device sizing level. The Coapsys device was implanted in seven dogs after induction of MR by rapid ventricular pacing. The device consists of anterior and posterior pads connected by a subvalvular cord. The device was tightened in 5% increments of the left ventricular epicardial to epicardial dimension up to 40%. Hemodynamic and echocardiographic measurements were repeated at each tightening level. The Coapsys significantly reduced or eliminated functional MR, and the reduction was maximized at the 30% tightening level or lower in all cases. Although the left ventricular end diastolic volume decreased significantly, forward stroke volume was maintained until the 35% tightening level. The forward ejection fraction significantly increased from 33 +/- 24% at baseline to 62 +/- 42% at 40% tightening level. Mean aortic pressure decreased slightly but significantly. The Coapsys device can be applied over a broad range of tightening levels with significant reduction in MR without negative physiologic impact. This feature makes the device usable [corrected] in a variety of clinical settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fukamachi et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: