==== Front ESC Heart FailESC Heart Fail10.1002/(ISSN)2055-5822EHF2ESC Heart Failure2055-5822John Wiley and Sons Inc. Hoboken 10.1002/ehf2.12287EHF212287ESCHF-18-00022ReviewReviewMitral valve interventions in heart failure Mitral valve interventions in HFD. Lavall et al.Lavall Daniel daniel.lavall@medizin.uni-leipzig.de 1 Hagendorff Andreas 1 Schirmer Stephan H. 2 Böhm Michael 2 Borger Michael A. 3 Laufs Ulrich 1 1 Klinik und Poliklinik für Kardiologie Universitätsklinikum Leipzig Leipzig D‐04103 Germany 2 Klinik für Innere Medizin III – Kardiologie, Angiologie und internistische Intensivmedizin Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes Homburg D‐66421 Germany 3 Herzzentrum Leipzig Universitätsklinik für Herzchirurgie Leipzig D‐04289 Germany * Correspondence to: Daniel Lavall, Klinik und Poliklinik für Kardiologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Liebigstr. 20, Leipzig D‐04103, Germany. Tel: +49 341 9720963. Email: daniel.lavall@medizin.uni-leipzig.de 19 4 2018 8 2018 5 4 10.1002/ehf2.v5.4552 561 29 1 2018 10 3 2018 © 2018 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.Abstract Secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) results from left ventricular dilatation and dysfunction. Quantification of secondary MR is challenging because of the underlying myocardial disease. Clinical and echocardiographic evaluation requires a multi‐parametric approach. Severe secondary MR occurs in up to one‐fourth of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, which is associated with a mortality rate of 40% to 50% in 3 years. Percutaneous edge‐to‐edge mitral valve repair (MitraClip) has emerged as an alternative to surgical valve repair to improve symptoms, functional capacity, heart failure hospitalizations, and cardiac haemodynamics. Further new transcatheter strategies addressing MR are evolving. The Carillion, Cardioband, and Mitralign devices were designed to reduce the annulus dilatation, which is a frequent and important determinant of secondary MR. Several transcatheter mitral valve replacement systems (Tendyne, CardiAQ‐Edwards, Neovasc, Tiara, Intrepid, Caisson, HighLife, MValve System, and NCSI NaviGate Mitral) are emerging because valve replacement might be more durable compared with valve repair. In small studies, these interventional therapies demonstrated feasibility and efficiency to reduce MR and to improve heart failure symptoms. However, neither transcatheter nor surgical mitral valve repair or replacement has been proven to impact on the prognosis of heart failure patients with severe MR, which remains high with a mortality rate of 14–20% at 1 year. To date, the primary indication for treatment of secondary severe MR is the amelioration of symptoms, reinforcing the value of a Heart Team discussion. Randomized studies to investigate the treatment effect and long‐term outcome for any transcatheter or surgical mitral valve intervention compared with optimized medical treatment are urgently needed and underway. Heart failureSecondary mitral regurgitationHemodynamicTranscatheter mitral valve repairSurgical mitral vale repair source-schema-version-number2.0component-idehf212287cover-dateAugust 2018details-of-publishers-convertorConverter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:version=5.4.4 mode:remove_FC converted:03.08.2018 Lavall , D. , Hagendorff , A. , Schirmer , S. H. , Böhm , M. , Borger , M. A. , and Laufs , U. (2018 ) Mitral valve interventions in heart failure . ESC Heart Failure , 5 : 552 –561 . 10.1002/ehf2.12287 . ==== Body Pathophysiology of secondary mitral regurgitation Secondary (syn.: functional) mitral regurgitation (MR) results from left ventricular (LV) dilatation and dysfunction or mitral annulus dilatation, while the mitral valve (MV) is structurally intact (Figure 1 ).1, 2 Mitral annulus dilatation can occur due to LV or left atrial (LA) dilatation, e.g. in atrial fibrillation.3, 4, 5 In contrast, primary MR is caused by structural disease of the mitral leaflets or the subvalvular apparatus. Figure 1 Pathophysiology of secondary mitral regurgitation (MR). Scheme of a dilated left ventricle (LV), leading to papillary muscle displacement and increased tethering forces on the mitral leaflets. Closing forces are reduced because of impaired LV contractility. Annulus dilatation occurs frequently, either due to LV or left atrial (LA) dilatation, or both. The imbalance between closing and tethering forces causes secondary MR. Ao, aorta. Left ventricular dilatation causes papillary muscle apical and lateral displacement. The consequence is a tethering of the mitral leaflets that can be visualized as the ‘tenting’ sign in echocardiography (Figure 2 A), leading to incomplete valve closure and MR (Figure 2 B). LV dysfunction with impaired contractility results in reduced closing forces on the MV. The imbalance between tethering forces and closing forces leads to MV insufficiency.1, 6 Mitral annulus dilatation due to LA dilatation in atrial fibrillation is characterized by a pronounced LA enlargement in comparison with the LV without a ‘tenting’ sign.5 Figure 2 Echocardiography of secondary mitral regurgitation (MR). (A) Echocardiographic four‐chamber view demonstrates the mechanism of secondary MR. Mitral valve leaflet tethering can be visualized as the ‘tenting’ sign, i.e. apical displaced leaflet coaptation. The yellow line simulates the virtual mitral annulus, the yellow arrow the tenting high. (B) Apical four‐chamber colour Doppler visualizes the central regurgitant flow of secondary MR. However, colour Doppler evaluation is not sufficient to quantify MR. (C) Parasternal short axis colour Doppler view of the mitral valve demonstrates a typical elliptical orifice area of MR along the entire leaflet coaptation line. In the literature, ischaemic and non‐ischaemic MR has been described. Ischaemic MR does not encompass a specific entity but denotes the occurrence of MR in the presence of significant coronary artery disease, resulting either from regional wall motion abnormality with papillary muscle dysfunction or from ischaemic cardiomyopathy with global LV dysfunction.7 Non‐ischaemic MR occurs in dilated cardiomyopathy. In MR, the total stroke volume consists of the forward and the regurgitant stroke volumes.8 With increasing severity of secondary MR, the volume load on the LV increases and aggravates LV dilatation and eccentric LV hypertrophy. With increasing severity, regurgitant volume becomes substantial and may exceed forward stroke volume, leading to reduced forward cardiac output and increased LA pressures and pulmonary congestion.8 Symptoms such as reduced exercise tolerance, exercise dyspnoea, tachypnoea, lower extremity oedema, and acute kidney failure may occur. These signs and symptoms are not specific for secondary MR but reflect symptomatic heart failure.1, 8 Diagnosis and definition of severe secondary mitral regurgitation Echocardiography is the primary method to diagnose and quantify MR.3 Transthoracic echocardiography usually allows to visualize MR, to identify the mechanism (Figure 2 ), and to assess MR severity by qualitative, semi‐quantitative, and quantitative parameters.9 Transoesophageal echocardiography may be indicated in case of insufficient transthoracic ultrasound windows and for detailed visualization of the MV anatomy and pathology prior to MV intervention.4, 9 Cardiac magnetic resonance may be useful for additional assessment of the severity and the mechanism of MR in selected patients and to obtain additional information about myocardial remodelling and viability.4, 10 The quantification of MR may be challenging because secondary MR is dynamic in nature, depends on loading conditions, LV function, and size.11 Therefore, it requires a systematic approach.4 The colour flow area of the regurgitant jet is not recommended to quantify MR severity.9 Semi‐quantitative parameters are helpful but not sufficient for the assessment of MR severity. A robust parameter is the ratio of transmitral and LV outflow tract velocity time integrals because it is independent of jet geometry.9 From a haemodynamic point of view, the best quantitative parameter may be the regurgitant fraction, calculated either by echocardiography or by magnetic resonance tomography. The effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA) and regurgitation volume, derived from the proximal isovelocity surface area method, has been extensively studied. In secondary MR, an EROA > 20 mm2 and regurgitation volume > 30 mL are associated with an impaired prognosis independent of LV function.12, 13, 14 This applies for both ischaemic and non‐ischaemic cardiomyopathy.12 Therefore, ‘severe’ secondary MR is defined in the 2017 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) valvular heart disease guideline as EROA > 20 mm2 and regurgitation volume > 30 mL.3 The 2017 American Society of Echocardiography guidelines define ‘severe’ secondary MR similar to severe primary MR, i.e. EROA > 40 mm2, with high specificity. However, an EROA > 30 mm2 could also indicate severe MR if additional parameters suggest severe MR, for instance, systolic pulmonary flow reversal.4 The uncertainty about the definition of ‘severe’ secondary MR arises from the fact that any degree of secondary MR affects outcome, even mild and moderate MR,12, 13, 14 and that a prognostic impact of MR correction does not yet exist.4 Furthermore, the shape of the regurgitation orifice area in secondary MR is rather semilunar than round as in primary MR (Figure 2 C), leading to underestimation of MR severity by EROA calculation, which has been validated for primary MR.4, 9 An alternative and direct method to assess EROA is to measure the vena contracta area,4 either from perpendicular biplane views or from a 3D multiplanar reconstruction. It can identify severe secondary MR in cases when the proximal isovelocity surface area method might underestimate EROA and MR severity because of its geometric assumptions.4 A clear characterization of the degree of secondary MR under stable conditions, particularly with regard to intravascular volume status, and under optimal medical treatment is a prerequisite for the subsequent management of MR. In addition to the mechanism and severity of MR, LV dimensions and function, the size of the LA, pulmonary vein flow using pulsed‐wave Doppler, right ventricular function, and pulmonary pressures, preferably derived from right heart catheterization or from tricuspid regurgitation continuous‐wave Doppler signal, complete the haemodynamic assessment and should be reported. Left ventricular function and secondary mitral regurgitation Because the prognostic impact of MV interventions for secondary MR is unknown, it remains unclear if MR is a marker or mediator of prognosis, i.e. if MR indicates advanced stage of heart failure or increases itself the risk for adverse outcome. Kamperidis et al. demonstrated with speckle‐tracking echocardiography in patients matched for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) but various degrees of secondary MR that those with severe MR had impaired global longitudinal strain, indicating a more deteriorated LV function than LVEF would suggest.15 LVEF is an imperfect parameter of LV systolic function in MR because of its load dependency.16 Because a load‐independent parameter of LV function is not yet available for clinical routine, forward ejection fraction (calculated as forward stroke volume divided by LV end‐diastolic volume) or global longitudinal strain seem to be superior to LVEF to assess LV systolic function in MR.15, 17 Transcatheter mitral valve interventions MitraClip The MitraClip device (Abbott Vascular, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) is the most widely used technique of transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) with more than 50 000 performed procedures worldwide (ESC Congress 2017, pers. comm.). The principle of MitraClip is based on Alfieri's edge‐to‐edge repair, where the anterior and the posterior leaflets are grasped and attached at the location of the regurgitation jet, thus creating a double orifice MV.18, 19, 20 Several clips can be implanted until the regurgitation is sufficiently reduced, but MV orifice area during diastole has to be monitored carefully during the procedure because elevated mitral gradients after TMVR are associated with adverse outcome.21, 22 The edge‐to‐edge repair technique is a symptomatic therapy because the mechanism, either leaflet tethering or annulus dilatation, is not targeted. Transcatheter mitral valve repair with MitraClip implantation can immediately improve cardiac haemodynamics (Figure 3 ).17, 23 The pressure–volume relationship in patients with secondary MR undergoing TMVR is displayed in Figure 4 , indicating reduced volume load with maintained LV contractility despite a drop in LVEF.17 Figure 3 Haemodynamic changes during percutaneous edge‐to‐edge repair. (A) Transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) two‐chamber colour Doppler view visualizes severe mitral regurgitation at baseline before transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR). (B) Pulsed‐wave (PW) Doppler shows blunted systolic antegrade pulmonary vein flow with late‐systole flow reversal at baseline. (C) Left atrial (bottom) and peripheral arterial (top) pressure tracings before TMVR. Left atrial pressure is elevated with a prominent v‐wave. (D) Two‐chamber colour Doppler view shows minimal residual mitral regurgitation after implantation of two MitraClips. (E) PW Doppler demonstrates similar systolic and diastolic antegrade flow in the pulmonary veins after TMVR. (F) Left atrial pressure (bottom) is reduced after successful TMVR despite higher arterial blood pressure (top). The latter might result from increased forward stroke volume but is also affected by the rate of vasopressor administration due to general anaesthesia during TMVR. Figure 4 Pressure–volume relationship before and after transcatheter mitral valve repair. Schematic pressure–volume relationship derived from non‐invasive single‐beat analysis in patients with secondary mitral regurgitation before (blue) and after (red) transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) with MitraClip implantation. The dotted lines represent the end‐systolic pressure–volume relationship whose slope, the end‐systolic elastance, is a marker of left ventricular contractility. The grey lines represent a normal, non‐failing heart. Modified according to Lavall et al.17 The EVEREST (Endovascular Valve Edge‐to‐Edge Repair Study) trial19 compared surgical MV repair with the MitraClip device, but only one‐third of the patients (n = 279) suffered from secondary MR.19 Overall mortality at 12 months was similar (6%), but the surgical group experienced higher perioperative morbidity. Major adverse events occurred in 15% vs. 48% (P < 0.01) at 30 days, driven by an increased amount of blood transfusion in the surgical group, whereas the TMVR group underwent more often recurrent MV interventions (20% vs. 2%, P < 0.001). In the subgroup of patients with secondary MR, the primary efficacy outcome (a composite of freedom from death, surgery for MV dysfunction, and MR ≤ moderate at 12 months) was similar between surgery and TMVR at 1 and 4 years.19, 24 Beyond 1 year, the rates of recurrent MR requiring MV surgery increased only slightly.24 The EVEREST trial remains the only prospective randomized trial using MitraClip to date. In a study of 120 propensity‐matched patients with secondary MR, TMVR was associated with better survival and reduced heart failure re‐hospitalizations compared with optimal medical therapy.25 Until now, MitraClip is not licenced to treat secondary MR in the USA. Safety and efficacy of TMVR have been confirmed in three European registries including a total of >1900 patients,26, 27, 28 whereby >70% of patients suffered from secondary MR. Overall procedural success rate was >91%, with 30 day mortality <5%.26 The 1 year follow‐up demonstrated a mortality rate of 15% to 20% and a re‐hospitalization rate of 63%, of which 20% were because of cardiac decompensation.26 Less than 10% of patients underwent additional MV procedures (surgical or interventional). Further observational studies determined that TMVR is a safe and efficacious procedure in advanced heart failure (LVEF < 25%, New York Heart Association class III/IV) with regard to functional improvement.29 TMVR seems to be feasible in non‐responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy.30 Carillon The Carillon Mitral Contour System (Cardiac Dimension Inc., Kirkland, WA, USA) is a fixed‐length double anchor implant that serves as an indirect annuloplasty system. Implanted in the coronary sinus around the mitral annulus, reduction of MR results from septal–lateral compression of the posterior mitral annulus,18 thus approaching the mitral leaflets. This technique targets mitral annulus dilatation, similar to surgical annuloplasty. It does not improve tethering of the leaflets. Stretching of the annulus and valvular structures is also an important contributor of recurrent MR after edge‐to‐edge MV repair.31 Because leaflet morphology is unaffected by the device, subsequent MV interventions are possible. In the Carillon Mitral AMADEUS (Annuloplasty Device European Union Study)32 including 48 patients with dilated cardiomyopathy, LVEF < 40%, and moderate‐to‐severe secondary MR, the device was successfully implanted in 30 patients. Access issues, insufficient MR reduction and compromise of coronary artery blood flow were reasons in the remaining patients to remove the device before final deposition. The major adverse event rate was 13% at 30 days. The TITAN (Transcatheter Implantation of Carillon Mitral Annuloplasty Device) trial33 included 83 patients with successful implantation of the device in 66 patients. The 30 day major adverse event rate was 1.9%. After 12 months, there was sustained MR reduction and functional capacity. A second‐generation device to avoid previously observed anchor fractures was safe and similarly effective in 36 patients (TITAN II trial).34 The effects on clinical outcomes are unknown. Cardioband The Cardioband technique (Edwards Lifesciences; Irvine, USA) is derived from the concept of surgical MV restrictive annuloplasty. The Cardioband is a direct transcatheter annuloplasty system, which is anchored into the annulus tissue at several points along the posterior MV annulus under 3D echocardiographic guidance.18, 35 After complete implantation, the band is contracted by external rotation on the delivery catheter, thereby narrowing the septal–lateral dimension of the MV annulus until MR is sufficiently reduced on transoesophageal echocardiography. This system targets annulus dilatation. A first‐in‐man study of 31 high‐risk patients with secondary MR showed feasibility and safety without procedural death, a high rate of technical success, and sustained reduction of MR (≤ moderate MR) in 88% of patients at 30 days.35 Cardioband implantation is (still) time‐consuming; the mean implantation time was 2:45 ± 0:44 min. Mitralign Mitralign is a direct annuloplasty system that uses radiofrequency energy to penetrate sutures for two pledgets into the mitral annulus tissue posterior and anterior to the commissure. By cinching the sutures, the mitral annulus becomes reduced.18 In the Mitralign Percutaneous Annuloplasty First‐in‐Man Study,36 the device was successfully implanted in 50 out of 71 patients with secondary MR. The 30 day mortality was 4.4%. Echocardiography demonstrated reduction of MR grade in 50% of patients 6 months after implantation, associated with reverse LV remodelling and improved functional status. Transcatheter mitral valve replacement Concerns about the durability of any TMVR repair technique yielded the concept of transcatheter MV replacement. The implantation of a prosthesis into the MV is challenging because of the oval and saddle‐shaped MV geometry, the non‐rigid nature of the mitral annulus, the need to anchor the prosthesis, the large variation in mitral annular sizes, and the risk of LV outflow tract obstruction. There are currently eight biological, self‐expanding prostheses that are under clinical development. The implantation is executed mostly through a transapical access.37 Observational studies for each prosthesis consist of 5–50 high‐risk patients with predominantly secondary MR and varying follow‐up times up to 20 months. Feasibility was demonstrated by successful device implantation rate of 76–93%, conversion to open heart surgery 0–15%, procedural mortality 0–30%, and 30 day mortality 3–53%.37, 38 At follow‐up, MR reduction was sustained (no patients with more than moderate MR at follow‐up in all reports), and symptom status improved. A recent review summarizes the current state of transcatheter MV replacement.37 No transcatheter MV prosthesis is currently approved for clinical use. Further studies are expected in the next years. Transcatheter MV replacement has been performed in failed mitral bioprosthetic valves (valve‐in‐valve) and failed ring annuloplasty (valve‐in‐ring) in patients at high risk for reoperation. A recent multicentre registry of 248 patients determined feasibility using transcatheter balloon‐expandable aortic valves through a transseptal or transapical access.39 Mean LVEF in this study was 52.5% ± 13.9%. Technical success was 92.3% at the end of the procedure and 30 day mortality 6.5%. Post‐procedural morbidity as well as 1 year mortality was higher in patients with valve‐in‐ring compared with valve‐in‐valve procedures (28.7% vs. 12.6%).39 Surgical solutions Because the underlying LV myocardial dysfunction in secondary MR cannot be corrected, surgical approaches are restricted to reduce heart failure morbidity. Secondary MR surgery should aim to alter LV geometry, i.e. reducing mitral annulus and LV dimensions in order to reduce tethering forces. Complete restrictive ring annuloplasty with implantation of an undersized complete MV ring to improve leaflet coadaptation is the most widely applied technique.1, 2, 3, 7 However, it addresses only one determinant of secondary MR, i.e. annulus dilatation. Restrictive annuloplasty is associated with high rates of MR recurrence because it can increase posterior MV leaflet tethering when there is a mismatch between ring size and LV dimension.40 Additional subvalvular procedures, such as secondary chordal cutting41 and papillary muscle repositioning with a trans‐ventricular suture (‘string’ technique),42 have been proposed to overcome this issue.2 Reports on subvalvular repair techniques are limited by their small sample size and single centre, retrospective designs.43 Papillary muscle approximation in addition to complete surgical myocardial revascularization and undersized restrictive MV annuloplasty reduced LV dimensions and MR recurrence at 5 years in a randomized trial, but overall mortality and quality of life did not differ.44 The impact of surgical MV repair on mortality in secondary MR is unclear. A subgroup analysis of the prospective STICH (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure) trial showed that surgical MV repair combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with LVEF < 35% was associated with reduced mortality compared with CABG alone (hazard ratio 0.41, P < 0.006).14 Of note, the decision to treat the MV in this trial was left to the surgeon. In a prospective trial in 301 patients with moderate MR (defined as EROA 20–39 mm2) undergoing CABG randomized to either CABG or CABG with surgical MV repair,45 there were neither differences in LV remodelling (the primary endpoint) nor in mortality after 1 year. However, patients in the MV repair group had longer hospital stay and more neurologic events but lower rates of recurrent moderate or severe MR at follow‐up. Two other prospective randomized trials showed beneficial effects of concomitant MV repair with regard to LV reverse remodelling and functional capacity compared with those treated with CABG alone, with no differences in mortality.46, 47 In patients with secondary MR and dilated cardiomyopathy, the existing small studies do not allow to draw definite conclusions regarding the impact of MV surgery on survival.3 Recurrent MR after MV repair is an important issue occurring in up to 25% of patients after 1 year.1 Bioprosthetic surgical MV replacement with preservation of the subvalvular apparatus was similarly effective as MV repair in secondary MR regarding death, ventricular remodelling, and serious adverse events. However, recurrent MR occurred more frequently in the repair group (58.8% vs. 3.8%, P < 0.001), thus resulting in more re‐hospitalizations (48.3% vs. 42.2%, P = 0.01) and adverse events due to heart failure (24.0% vs. 15.2%, P = 0.05).48 Guideline recommendations Optimal medical therapy, i.e. up‐titration of angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor, beta‐blocker, and MR antagonist as well as diuretics according to volume status, is the first‐line treatment for secondary MR.3, 49 Cardiac resynchronization therapy is indicated in left bundle branch block with a QRS width > 130 ms because in responders, LV reverse remodelling and restoration of synchronous papillary muscle contraction increase MV closing forces, thus reducing MR.3, 49 Surgical MV repair is recommended in patients with severe secondary MR undergoing CABG (level of recommendation, I). MV replacement instead of MV repair should be considered if morphological risk factors on echocardiography for MR recurrence are present.3, 9 In those patients with LVEF < 30%, MV surgery should be considered if there are options for revascularization and evidence of myocardial viability (IIa). In patients without indication for revascularization and LVEF > 30%, either surgery or transcatheter edge‐to‐edge repair may be considered, depending on the surgical risk and the valve morphology (IIb). In patients with an LVEF <30% who remain symptomatic despite optimal heart failure therapy, the Heart Team should discuss therapeutic options including LV assist device implantation, heart transplantation, MV surgery, and transcatheter edge‐to‐edge repair on an individual basis (IIb). Overall, the evidence for these recommendations is low (level of evidence C).3 Perspectives There are several ongoing clinical trials that randomize patients with secondary MR and symptomatic heart failure to either TMVR (using different devices) or optimal medical therapy (Table 1). In 2018, the results of the COAPT trial are awaited at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics congress and those of the MITRA‐FR trial at the ESC congress. Table 1 Ongoing randomized clinical trials of transcatheter MV repair in secondary MR Study acronym ClinicalTrials.gov identifier Device Control group Key inclusion criteria Primary outcome measures Duration Patients scheduled COAPT NCT01626079 MitraClip Standard hospital clinical practice Symptomatic functional MR (≥3+), optimal HF therapy, NYHA II–IV, LVEF 20–50%, >1 HF hospitalization < 12 months or elevated BNP/NT‐proBNP (i) Safety: Device detachment or embolization, endocarditis requiring surgery, mitral stenosis requiring surgery, LVAD implant, heart transplant, and any device‐related complications requiring non‐elective cardiovascular surgery (ii) Effectiveness: Survival and recurrentHF hospitalizations 12 months         5 years 610 MITRA‐FR NCT01920698 MitraClip GDMT Severe MR (RV > 30 mL or EROA > 20 mm2), NYHA ≥ II, LVEF 15–40%, optimal HF therapy, >1 HF hospitalization < 12 months All‐cause mortality, unplanned hospitalizations for HF 12 months 288 RESHAPE‐HF2 NCT02444338 MitraClip Optimal standard of care therapy Clinically significant MR (≥3+), optimal HF therapy, NYHA II–IV, LVEF 15–45%, >1 HF hospitalization < 12 months or elevated BNP/NT‐proBNP Cardiovascular death and composite rate of recurrent HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death ≥ 24 months 420 MATTERHORN NCT02371512 MitraClip Clinically significant MR, LVEF 20–45%, optimal HF treatment, NYHA III–IV Composite of death, re‐hospitalization for HF, reintervention (repeat operation or repeat intervention), assist device implantation and stroke (whatever is first) 12 months 210 MITRA‐CRT NCT02592889 MitraClip Optimized GDMT MR ≥2+, previous CRT implantation, adequate CRT therapy without clinical response to CRT (NYHA III or NYHA II with a hospital admission for HF < 12 months), LVEF 15–40% (i) Safety: Number of participants without adverse events related with the therapy (stroke, device embolization, emergent surgery/pericardiocentesis or procedural‐related mortality) (ii) Effectiveness: Improvement >10% in 6MWT, no readmissions for HF, heart transplantation, or mortality 12 months 30 REDUCE FMR NCT02325830 Carillon Optimized GDMT MR ≥2+, NYHA II–IV, LVEF < 50%, 6MWT 150–450 m, stable HF medication for at least 3 months Change in regurgitant volume 12 months 180 ACTIVE NCT03016975 Cardioband GDMT Clinically significant MR, NYHA II–IV, previous HF hospitalization < 12 months or elevated BNP Prevalence of MR ≤2+, time to cardiovascular death, number of HF hospitalizations, improvement in 6MWT distance and KCCQ 12 months 375 6MWT, six min walk test; ACTIVE, Annular ReduCtion for Transcatheter Treatment of Insufficient Mitral ValvE trial; COAPT, Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; EROA, effective regurgitant orifice area; GDMT, guideline‐directed medical therapy; HF, heart failure; KCCQ, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionaire; LVAD, left ventricular assist device; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MATTERHORN, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study to Assess Mitral vAlve reconsTrucTion for advancEd Insufficiency of Functional or iscHemic ORigiN; MITRA‐CRT, MitraClip in Non‐Responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy; MITRA‐FR, Multicentre Study of Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair MitraClip Device in Patients with Severe Secondary Mitral Regurgitation; MR, mitral regurgitation; MV, mitral valve; NT‐proBNP, N terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide; NYHA, New York Heart Association functional class; REDUCE FMR, Safety and Efficacy of the Carillon Mitral Contour System in Reducing Functional Mitral Regurgitation Associated with Heart Failure; RESHAPE‐HF2, Clinical Evaluation of the Safety and Effectiveness of the MitraClip System in the Treatment of Clinically Significant Functional Mitral Regurgitation; RV, regurgitation volume. In the rapidly evolving field of MV interventions, there are many unresolved issues: Prognostic impact: Most importantly, adequately powered, randomized controlled trials to evaluate the impact on long‐term prognosis of any MV intervention, i.e. transcatheter or surgical, compared with optimal medical therapy in patients with chronic heart failure and secondary MR are urgently needed. Endpoints in trials: Relevant endpoints include mortality and heart failure hospitalizations. Exercise capacity, i.e. 6 min walk test and/or spiroergometry, quality of life, and symptom status should be assessed in a controlled study designs. Timing of MV intervention: Because there are disparities in MR quantification between European and American guidelines, studies should concisely describe their method of quantification. Previous studies included mostly patients with ‘moderate‐to‐severe’ MR. There are no data if an earlier intervention in patients ‘at risk’, for instance, with mild or moderate MR, would impact the clinical course of chronic heart failure. On the other side, patients with ‘severe’ MR are at highest risk for decompensation, i.e. MV intervention could have the greatest impact in these patients. Target of intervention: Should TMVR aim to reduce or to eliminate MR? Despite the evidence that procedural failure of TMVR is a strong predictor for death,26 there are no data how aggressively MR needs to be treated during the intervention. This applies particularly for the edge‐to‐edge repair where several clips can be implanted if needed. Choice of device: The available devices address different mechanisms of MR, thus an individual therapy based on the underlying mechanism of MR may become applicable. For instance, failing annuloplasty could be followed by edge‐to‐edge repair. However, these pathophysiological considerations require prospective data to support this strategy. Conclusions Secondary MR remains a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. Indications for interventions are symptomatic heart failure despite optimal medical and device therapy. Surgical MV repair is indicated in severe secondary MR and options for coronary revascularization. TMVR is emerging with many new devices. Transcatheter edge‐to‐edge repair may be considered for patients at high risk for surgery according to the current guidelines. However, the prognostic impact of any surgical or transcatheter MV intervention is unproven, reinforcing the need for randomized controlled clinical studies. Conflict of interest M.A.B. is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, CryoLife, and Medtronic. D.L., A.H., S.H.S., M.B., and U.L. declared no conflicts of interest. ==== Refs References 1 Asgar AW , Mack MJ , Stone GW . Secondary mitral regurgitation in heart failure: pathophysiology, prognosis, and therapeutic considerations . J Am Coll Cardiol 2015 ; 65 : 1231 –1248 .25814231 2 Punnoose L , Burkhoff D , Cunningham L , Horn EM . Functional mitral regurgitation: therapeutic strategies for a ventricular disease . J Card Fail 2014 ; 20 : 252 –267 .24440574 3 Baumgartner H , Falk V , Bax JJ , De Bonis M , Hamm C , Holm PJ , Iung B , Lancellotti P , Lansac E , Munoz DR , Rosenhek R , Sjogren J , Tornos Mas P , Vahanian A , Walther T , Wendler O , Windecker S , Zamorano JL , Group ESCSD . 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease . Eur Heart J 2017 ; 38 : 2739 –2791 .28886619 4 Zoghbi WA , Adams D , Bonow RO , Enriquez‐Sarano M , Foster E , Grayburn PA , Hahn RT , Han Y , Hung J , Lang RM , Little SH , Shah DJ , Shernan S , Thavendiranathan P , Thomas JD , Weissman NJ . Recommendations for noninvasive evaluation of native valvular regurgitation: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance . J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2017 ; 30 : 303 –371 .28314623 5 Liang JJ , Silvestry FE . Mechanistic insights into mitral regurgitation due to atrial fibrillation: “atrial functional mitral regurgitation” . Trends Cardiovasc Med 2016 ; 26 : 681 –689 .27345155 6 Liel‐Cohen N , Guerrero JL , Otsuji Y , Handschumacher MD , Rudski LG , Hunziker PR , Tanabe H , Scherrer‐Crosbie M , Sullivan S , Levine RA . Design of a new surgical approach for ventricular remodeling to relieve ischemic mitral regurgitation: insights from 3‐dimensional echocardiography . Circulation 2000 ; 101 : 2756 –2763 .10851215 7 Pierard LA , Carabello BA . Ischaemic mitral regurgitation: pathophysiology, outcomes and the conundrum of treatment . Eur Heart J 2010 ; 31 : 2996 –3005 .21123277 8 Carabello BA . Progress in mitral and aortic regurgitation . Curr Probl Cardiol 2003 ; 28 : 553 –582 . 9 Lancellotti P , Tribouilloy C , Hagendorff A , Popescu BA , Edvardsen T , Pierard LA , Badano L , Zamorano JL . Scientific Document Committee of the European Association of Cardiovascular I. Recommendations for the echocardiographic assessment of native valvular regurgitation: an executive summary from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging . Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2013 ; 14 : 611 –644 .23733442 10 Uretsky S , Gillam L , Lang R , Chaudhry FA , Argulian E , Supariwala A , Gurram S , Jain K , Subero M , Jang JJ , Cohen R , Wolff SD . Discordance between echocardiography and MRI in the assessment of mitral regurgitation severity: a prospective multicenter trial . J Am Coll Cardiol 2015 ; 65 : 1078 –1088 .25790878 11 Grayburn PA , Carabello B , Hung J , Gillam LD , Liang D , Mack MJ , McCarthy PM , Miller DC , Trento A , Siegel RJ . Defining “severe” secondary mitral regurgitation: emphasizing an integrated approach . J Am Coll Cardiol 2014 ; 64 : 2792 –2801 .25541133 12 Rossi A , Dini FL , Faggiano P , Agricola E , Cicoira M , Frattini S , Simioniuc A , Gullace M , Ghio S , Enriquez‐Sarano M , Temporelli PL . Independent prognostic value of functional mitral regurgitation in patients with heart failure. A quantitative analysis of 1256 patients with ischaemic and non‐ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy . Heart 2011 ; 97 : 1675 –1680 .21807656 13 Grigioni F , Enriquez‐Sarano M , Zehr KJ , Bailey KR , Tajik AJ . Ischemic mitral regurgitation: long‐term outcome and prognostic implications with quantitative Doppler assessment . Circulation 2001 ; 103 : 1759 –1764 .11282907 14 Deja MA , Grayburn PA , Sun B , Rao V , She L , Krejca M , Jain AR , Leng Chua Y , Daly R , Senni M , Mokrzycki K , Menicanti L , Oh JK , Michler R , Wrobel K , Lamy A , Velazquez EJ , Lee KL , Jones RH . Influence of mitral regurgitation repair on survival in the surgical treatment for ischemic heart failure trial . Circulation 2012 ; 125 : 2639 –2648 .22553307 15 Kamperidis V , Marsan NA , Delgado V , Bax JJ . Left ventricular systolic function assessment in secondary mitral regurgitation: left ventricular ejection fraction vs. speckle tracking global longitudinal strain . Eur Heart J 2016 ; 37 : 811 –816 .26685140 16 Carabello BA . A tragedy of modern cardiology: using ejection fraction to gauge left ventricular function in mitral regurgitation . Heart 2017 ; 103 : 570 –571 .28031241 17 Lavall D , Reil JC , Segura Schmitz L , Mehrer M , Schirmer SH , Böhm M , Laufs U . Early hemodynamic improvement after percutaneous mitral valve repair evaluated by noninvasive pressure‐volume analysis . J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2016 ; 29 : 888 –898 .27372560 18 Feldman T , Young A . Percutaneous approaches to valve repair for mitral regurgitation . J Am Coll Cardiol 2014 ; 63 : 2057 –2068 .24583296 19 Feldman T , Foster E , Glower DD , Kar S , Rinaldi MJ , Fail PS , Smalling RW , Siegel R , Rose GA , Engeron E , Loghin C , Trento A , Skipper ER , Fudge T , Letsou GV , Massaro JM , Mauri L , Investigators EI . Percutaneous repair or surgery for mitral regurgitation . N Engl J Med 2011 ; 364 : 1395 –1406 .21463154 20 Maisano F , Torracca L , Oppizzi M , Stefano PL , D'Addario G , La Canna G , Zogno M , Alfieri O . The edge‐to‐edge technique: a simplified method to correct mitral insufficiency . Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1998 ; 13 : 240 –245 ; discussion 245‐246.9628372 21 Neuss M , Schau T , Isotani A , Pilz M , Schopp M , Butter C . Elevated mitral valve pressure gradient after MitraClip implantation deteriorates long‐term outcome in patients with severe mitral regurgitation and severe heart failure . JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017 ; 10 : 931 –939 .28473116 22 Lavall D , Scheller B , Werner C , Buob A , Mahfoud F . Mitral valve pressure gradient after percutaneous mitral valve repair: every beat counts . ESC Heart Fail 2017 ; 5 : 193 –196 .29168622 23 Gaemperli O , Biaggi P , Gugelmann R , Osranek M , Schreuder JJ , Buhler I , Surder D , Lüscher TF , Felix C , Bettex D , Grunenfelder J , Corti R . Real‐time left ventricular pressure‐volume loops during percutaneous mitral valve repair with the MitraClip system . Circulation 2013 ; 127 : 1018 –1027 .23378298 24 Mauri L , Foster E , Glower DD , Apruzzese P , Massaro JM , Herrmann HC , Hermiller J , Gray W , Wang A , Pedersen WR , Bajwa T , Lasala J , Low R , Grayburn P , Feldman T , Investigators EI . 4‐year results of a randomized controlled trial of percutaneous repair versus surgery for mitral regurgitation . J Am Coll Cardiol 2013 ; 62 : 317 –328 .23665364 25 Giannini C , Fiorelli F , De Carlo M , Guarracino F , Faggioni M , Giordano P , Spontoni P , Pieroni A , Petronio AS . Comparison of percutaneous mitral valve repair versus conservative treatment in severe functional mitral regurgitation . Am J Cardiol 2016 ; 117 : 271 –277 .26651454 26 Puls M , Lubos E , Boekstegers P , von Bardeleben RS , Ouarrak T , Butter C , Zuern CS , Bekeredjian R , Sievert H , Nickenig G , Eggebrecht H , Senges J , Schillinger W . One‐year outcomes and predictors of mortality after MitraClip therapy in contemporary clinical practice: results from the German transcatheter mitral valve interventions registry . Eur Heart J 2016 ; 37 : 703 –712 .26614824 27 Nickenig G , Estevez‐Loureiro R , Franzen O , Tamburino C , Vanderheyden M , Luscher TF , Moat N , Price S , Dall'Ara G , Winter R , Corti R , Grasso C , Snow TM , Jeger R , Blankenberg S , Settergren M , Tiroch K , Balzer J , Petronio AS , Buttner HJ , Ettori F , Sievert H , Fiorino MG , Claeys M , Ussia GP , Baumgartner H , Scandura S , Alamgir F , Keshavarzi F , Colombo A , Maisano F , Ebelt H , Aruta P , Lubos E , Plicht B , Schueler R , Pighi M , Di Mario C . Percutaneous mitral valve edge‐to‐edge repair: in‐hospital results and 1‐year follow‐up of 628 patients of the 2011–2012 Pilot European Sentinel Registry . J Am Coll Cardiol 2014 ; 64 : 875 –884 .25169171 28 Maisano F , Franzen O , Baldus S , Schafer U , Hausleiter J , Butter C , Ussia GP , Sievert H , Richardt G , Widder JD , Moccetti T , Schillinger W . Percutaneous mitral valve interventions in the real world: early and 1‐year results from the ACCESS‐EU, a prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized post‐approval study of the MitraClip therapy in Europe . J Am Coll Cardiol 2013 ; 62 : 1052 –1061 .23747789 29 Franzen O , van der Heyden J , Baldus S , Schluter M , Schillinger W , Butter C , Hoffmann R , Corti R , Pedrazzini G , Swaans MJ , Neuss M , Rudolph V , Surder D , Grunenfelder J , Eulenburg C , Reichenspurner H , Meinertz T , Auricchio A . MitraClip(R) therapy in patients with end‐stage systolic heart failure . Eur J Heart Fail 2011 ; 13 : 569 –576 .21471146 30 Auricchio A , Schillinger W , Meyer S , Maisano F , Hoffmann R , Ussia GP , Pedrazzini GB , van der Heyden J , Fratini S , Klersy C , Komtebedde J , Franzen O , Investigators P‐C . Correction of mitral regurgitation in nonresponders to cardiac resynchronization therapy by MitraClip improves symptoms and promotes reverse remodeling . J Am Coll Cardiol 2011 ; 58 : 2183 –2189 .22078424 31 Bhudia SK , McCarthy PM , Smedira NG , Lam BK , Rajeswaran J , Blackstone EH . Edge‐to‐edge (Alfieri) mitral repair: results in diverse clinical settings . Ann Thorac Surg 2004 ; 77 : 1598 –1606 .15111150 32 Schofer J , Siminiak T , Haude M , Herrman JP , Vainer J , Wu JC , Levy WC , Mauri L , Feldman T , Kwong RY , Kaye DM , Duffy SJ , Tubler T , Degen H , Brandt MC , Van Bibber R , Goldberg S , Reuter DG , Hoppe UC . Percutaneous mitral annuloplasty for functional mitral regurgitation: results of the CARILLON Mitral Annuloplasty Device European Union Study . Circulation 2009 ; 120 : 326 –333 .19597051 33 Siminiak T , Wu JC , Haude M , Hoppe UC , Sadowski J , Lipiecki J , Fajadet J , Shah AM , Feldman T , Kaye DM , Goldberg SL , Levy WC , Solomon SD , Reuter DG . Treatment of functional mitral regurgitation by percutaneous annuloplasty: results of the TITAN trial . Eur J Heart Fail 2012 ; 14 : 931 –938 .22613584 34 Lipiecki J , Siminiak T , Sievert H , Muller‐Ehmsen J , Degen H , Wu JC , Schandrin C , Kalmucki P , Hofmann I , Reuter D , Goldberg SL , Haude M . Coronary sinus‐based percutaneous annuloplasty as treatment for functional mitral regurgitation: the TITAN II trial . Open Heart 2016 ; 3 : e000411.27493761 35 Maisano F , Taramasso M , Nickenig G , Hammerstingl C , Vahanian A , Messika‐Zeitoun D , Baldus S , Huntgeburth M , Alfieri O , Colombo A , La Canna G , Agricola E , Zuber M , Tanner FC , Topilsky Y , Kreidel F , Kuck KH . Cardioband, a transcatheter surgical‐like direct mitral valve annuloplasty system: early results of the feasibility trial . Eur Heart J 2016 ; 37 : 817 –825 .26586779 36 Nickenig G , Schueler R , Dager A , Martinez Clark P , Abizaid A , Siminiak T , Buszman P , Demkow M , Ebner A , Asch FM , Hammerstingl C . Treatment of chronic functional mitral valve regurgitation with a percutaneous annuloplasty system . J Am Coll Cardiol 2016 ; 67 : 2927 –2936 .27339489 37 Regueiro A , Granada JF , Dagenais F , Rodes‐Cabau J . Transcatheter mitral valve replacement: insights from early clinical experience and future challenges . J Am Coll Cardiol 2017 ; 69 : 2175 –2192 .28449780 38 Bapat V , Rajagopal V , Meduri C , Farivar RS , Walton A , Duffy SJ , Gooley R , Almeida A , Reardon MJ , Kleiman NS , Spargias K , Pattakos S , Ng MK , Wilson M , Adams DH , Leon M , Mack MJ , Chenoweth S , Sorajja P , Intrepid Global Pilot Study I . Early experience with new transcatheter mitral valve replacement . J Am Coll Cardiol 2018 ; 71 : 12 –21 .29102689 39 Yoon SH , Whisenant BK , Bleiziffer S , Delgado V , Schofer N , Eschenbach L , Fujita B , Sharma R , Ancona M , Yzeiraj E , Cannata S , Barker C , Davies JE , Frangieh AH , Deuschl F , Podlesnikar T , Asami M , Dhoble A , Chyou A , Masson JB , Wijeysundera HC , Blackman DJ , Rampat R , Taramasso M , Gutierrez‐Ibanes E , Chakravarty T , Attizzani GF , Kaneko T , Wong SC , Sievert H , Nietlispach F , Hildick‐Smith D , Nombela‐Franco L , Conradi L , Hengstenberg C , Reardon MJ , Kasel AM , Redwood S , Colombo A , Kar S , Maisano F , Windecker S , Pilgrim T , Ensminger SM , Prendergast BD , Schofer J , Schaefer U , Bax JJ , Latib A , Makkar RR . Transcatheter mitral valve replacement for degenerated bioprosthetic valves and failed annuloplasty rings . J Am Coll Cardiol 2017 ; 70 : 1121 –1131 .28838360 40 Capoulade R , Zeng X , Overbey JR , Ailawadi G , Alexander JH , Ascheim D , Bowdish M , Gelijns AC , Grayburn P , Kron IL , Levine RA , Mack MJ , Melnitchouk S , Michler RE , Mullen JC , O'Gara P , Parides MK , Smith P , Voisine P , Hung J , Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network Investigators . Impact of left ventricular to mitral valve ring mismatch on recurrent ischemic mitral regurgitation after ring annuloplasty . Circulation 2016 ; 134 : 1247 –1256 .27777294 41 Borger MA , Murphy PM , Alam A , Fazel S , Maganti M , Armstrong S , Rao V , David TE . Initial results of the chordal‐cutting operation for ischemic mitral regurgitation . J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007 ; 133 : 1483 –1492 .17532944 42 Langer F , Kunihara T , Hell K , Schramm R , Schmidt KI , Aicher D , Kindermann M , Schäfers HJ . RING+STRING: successful repair technique for ischemic mitral regurgitation with severe leaflet tethering . Circulation 2009 ; 120 : S85 –S91 .19752391 43 Borger MA , Alam A , Murphy PM , Doenst T , David TE . Chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation: repair, replace or rethink? Ann Thorac Surg 2006 ; 81 : 1153 –1161 .16488757 44 Nappi F , Lusini M , Spadaccio C , Nenna A , Covino E , Acar C , Chello M . Papillary muscle approximation versus restrictive annuloplasty alone for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation . J Am Coll Cardiol 2016 ; 67 : 2334 –2346 .27199056 45 Smith PK , Puskas JD , Ascheim DD , Voisine P , Gelijns AC , Moskowitz AJ , Hung JW , Parides MK , Ailawadi G , Perrault LP , Acker MA , Argenziano M , Thourani V , Gammie JS , Miller MA , Page P , Overbey JR , Bagiella E , Dagenais F , Blackstone EH , Kron IL , Goldstein DJ , Rose EA , Moquete EG , Jeffries N , Gardner TJ , O'Gara PT , Alexander JH , Michler RE , Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network Investigators . Surgical treatment of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation . N Engl J Med 2014 ; 371 : 2178 –2188 .25405390 46 Fattouch K , Guccione F , Sampognaro R , Panzarella G , Corrado E , Navarra E , Calvaruso D , Ruvolo G . POINT: efficacy of adding mitral valve restrictive annuloplasty to coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with moderate ischemic mitral valve regurgitation: a randomized trial . J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009 ; 138 : 278 –285 .19619766 47 Chan KM , Punjabi PP , Flather M , Wage R , Symmonds K , Roussin I , Rahman‐Haley S , Pennell DJ , Kilner PJ , Dreyfus GD , Pepper JR , Investigators R . Coronary artery bypass surgery with or without mitral valve annuloplasty in moderate functional ischemic mitral regurgitation: final results of the Randomized Ischemic Mitral Evaluation (RIME) trial . Circulation 2012 ; 126 : 2502 –2510 .23136163 48 Goldstein D , Moskowitz AJ , Gelijns AC , Ailawadi G , Parides MK , Perrault LP , Hung JW , Voisine P , Dagenais F , Gillinov AM , Thourani V , Argenziano M , Gammie JS , Mack M , Demers P , Atluri P , Rose EA , O'Sullivan K , Williams DL , Bagiella E , Michler RE , Weisel RD , Miller MA , Geller NL , Taddei‐Peters WC , Smith PK , Moquete E , Overbey JR , Kron IL , O'Gara PT , Acker MA , CTSN . Two‐year outcomes of surgical treatment of severe ischemic mitral regurgitation . N Engl J Med 2016 ; 374 : 344 –353 .26550689 49 Ponikowski P , Voors AA , Anker SD , Bueno H , Cleland JG , Coats AJ , Falk V , Gonzalez‐Juanatey JR , Harjola VP , Jankowska EA , Jessup M , Linde C , Nihoyannopoulos P , Parissis JT , Pieske B , Riley JP , Rosano GM , Ruilope LM , Ruschitzka F , Rutten FH , van der Meer P , Authors/Task Force M, Document R . ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC . Eur J Heart Fail 2016 ; 18 : 891 –975 .27207191