1. Percutaneous Mitral Repair with the MitraClip ® Device for Functional Mitral Regurgitation: Acute Success, One year Durability and Reverse Remodeling in the Initial EVEREST Cohort James Hermiller, MD, FACC, FSCAI The Care Group, LLC St Vincent Heart Center of Indiana Indianapolis, IN

2. Contributing Authors Saibal Kar, MDCedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA Peter Fail, MDCardiovascular Institute of the South, Houma, LA Michael Rinaldi, MDSanger Clinic, Charlotte, NC Tanvir BajwaSt. Lukes Medical Center, Milwaukee, WI Richard SmallingMemorial Herrmann Hospital, Houston, TX John LasalaWashington University Medical Center, St Louis, MO Scott LimUniversity of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville Robert KippermanOklahoma Heart Hospital, Oklahoma City, OK Howard Herrmann, MDUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA Patrick L Whitlow, MDThe Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH Elyse Foster, MDUniv. of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA Donald D Glower, MDDuke University, Durham, NC Ted Feldman, MDEvanston Northwestern Hospital, Evanston, IL On behalf of the EVEREST Investigators

3. Disclosures Consultant Abbott, BSC, and St Jude Fellowship support Cordis Investigational Device: Limited by Federal (or United States) Law to Investigational Use

4. Disclosures Investigational Device: Limited by Federal (or United States) Law to Investigational Use. Patient population: Initial Functional MR Cohort Initial experience using the MitraClip device in patients with FMR. Subset of patients with FMR treated in the EVEREST I Feasibility Study or as roll-ins in the EVEREST II Study. –Excludes EVEREST II Randomized patients or EVEREST II High Risk Registry patients.

5. Background & Purpose Of the 50,000 patients in the United States developing significant mitral regurgitation (MR) each year, up to 60% have functional MR Isolated leaflet repair for functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) has not been well characterized The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of isolated leaflet repair using the MitraClip device in patients with FMR.

6. Edge to Edge & MitraClip Concepts Facilitates proper leaflet coaptation Degenerative - Anchor flail and prolapsed leaflets Functional - Coapt tethered leaflets to reduce time and force required to close valve Reduces LV volume overload by reducing MR Creates tissue bridge May limit dilatation of annulus –Septal-lateral (A-P) dimension Supports durability of repair Restrains LV wall Limits LV dilatation Porcine model, 6M

7. Methods Surgical candidates with FMR were treated with the MitraClip device as part of the EVEREST protocols. FMR was defined as the presence of MR without demonstrated echocardiographic structural valve defects as assessed by TEE. TTE performed to assess MR severity and LV function and dimensions at baseline and at 12 months. American Society of Echocardiography criteria were used for systematic Core Laboratory assessment of MR severity and LV function.

8. Methods: Key Eligibility Criteria Age 18 years or older Moderate to severe (3+) or severe (4+) MR Symptomatic Asymptomatic with LVEF 40mm ACC/AHA Guidelines, Circ. 114;450,2006 MR originates from A2-P2 mal-coaptation Candidate for mitral valve surgery Transseptal deemed feasible Key Exclusions EF 55 mm Renal insufficiency Endocarditis, rheumatic heart disease

9. Methods: Anatomic Eligibility TEE evidence of FMR: Absence of Degenerative valve disease Presence of leaflet tethering –Not exceeding 10mm Sufficient leaflet tissue available for mechanical coaptation > 2mm vertical leaflet tissue available Protocol anatomic exclusions –Coaptation depth >11mm –Coaptation length < 2mm Absence of severe LV dysfunction Excluding LVID-s > 55mm or EF <25% Ischemic or non-ischemic etiology <2mm >11mm Exclusions

10. EVEREST Preliminary FMR Cohort StudyPopulationn EVEREST I (Feasibility) FMR patients8 EVEREST II (Pivotal) Non-randomized FMR patients (excludes high risk patients) 15 Total23 Analysis per EVEREST II definitions Initial experience using the MitraClip device in patients with FMR. Subset of patients with FMR treated in the EVEREST I Feasibility Study or as roll-ins in the EVEREST II Study. –Excludes EVEREST II Randomized patients or EVEREST II High Risk Registry patients.

11. EVEREST MR Reduction Goals Eligibility requirement:3+ or 4+ MR Protocol requirement: Reduce MR 2+ Procedural goal: Reduce MR 1+ Durability goal: Maintain MR reduction 2+

12. EVEREST Initial FMR Cohort Clinical Features FMR n = 23 EVEREST Overall N = 107 Median Age (range) age 65 75 (50 – 88) 74% 71 (26 – 88) 62% Male gender52%62% Diabetes mellitus48%21% Hypertension96%69% COPD22%12% History CHF87%56% Prior Cardiac Surgery43%19% Atrial Fibrillation26%29% Median EF50%62% NYHA III or IV83%46% LVID Systole (cm)4.3 ± 0.73.5 ± 0.8

13. EVEREST Initial FMR Cohort Patients with 30 Day Major Adverse Events (N = 23) Freedom from Major Adverse Events87% Death – Unrelated to Clip0 Stroke (>72 hours)0 Myocardial Infarction0 Re-operation for failed surgery0 Non-elective Cardiac Surgery (Pericardial Effusion)1 Renal failure0 Deep wound infection0 Ventilation > 48 hrs0 GI complication requiring surgery0 Septicemia0 Bleeding requiring transfusion 2 units2

14. EVEREST Initial FMR Cohort Efficacy Results through Discharge N = 23 * Acute Procedural Success (APS): Defined as placement of one or more Clips resulting in discharge MR severity of 2+ or less, as determined by Core Lab.

15. EVEREST Initial FMR Cohort: Freedom From MR > 2+ Kaplan-Meier Acute Procedural Success (APS) Patients (19) (14) (12) (6) (5)(3) (n)

16. EVEREST Initial FMR Cohort: Event Free Clinical Success Kaplan-Meier APS Patients Freedom from death, mitral valve surgery, & MR > 2+ (81) (74) (66) (48) (43) (37) (n) (19) (15) (14) (8) (7) (6) (n) 64% 67% 68% 69% 75% 85% 74% 84% 79% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 06121824303642 Time (months) Probability of Event Free Clinical Success All APS Patients Functional APS Patients

17. 75% (9/12) Improved 17% (2/12) No Change 8% (1/12) Worsened w/o MR > 1+ EVEREST Initial FMR Cohort NYHA Class, APS Patients* (matched data, n = 12) * Excludes patients that went to MV surgery post-Clip prior to 12- months or have not reached 12-month follow-up

18. EVEREST Initial FMR Cohort: Surgery Following Clip Procedure N = 23 SURGERY FREE 19/23 Median Follow-up 369 Days Surgery After Clip Implanted (n = 3) 2 Repairs 1 Replacement Surgery After No Clip (n = 1) 1 Replacement No Partial Clip Detachments No Clip Embolizations

19. EVEREST Initial FMR Cohort Reverse LV Remodeling APS Patients* (matched data, n = 12) p = 0.006 p = 0.12 p < 0.04 p < 0.03 DiastolicSystolic * Excludes patients that went to MV surgery post-Clip prior to 12-months or have not reached 12-month follow-up

20. EVEREST Initial FMR Cohort Conclusions Percutaneous mitral repair with the MitraClip: Effective in reducing MR with a low MAE rate Significant reverse LV remodeling at 1-year Clinical improvement with 58% of patients NYHA Class I at 1-year 79% freedom from death, surgery for valve dysfunction and MR > 2+ at 1-year Surgical options preserved in majority of patients MitraClip facilitates leaflet coaptation reducing MR in functional patients

21. Study Limitations Very small number of patients Non randomized Observational study Initial experience – early in learning curve Only 12/19 with acute procedural suceess have 1 year follow up (clinical and echo)

22. EVEREST Principal Investigators and Affiliation Ted Feldman, EVEREST I PI, EVEREST II PIEvanston Northwestern Hospital, Evanston, IL Patrick L Whitlow The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH Hal Wasserman/Bill GrayColumbia University, New York, NY; Danville, CT Michael RinaldiSanger Clinic, Charlotte, NC Howard Herrmann University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA Richard W Smalling Houston Health Sciences Center, Houston, TX Bill Gray/Mark Reisman Swedish Medical center, Seattle, WA Peter Block/Ziyad GhazzalEmory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA Paul Kramer Shawnee Mission Medical Center, Shawnee Mission, KS Steven Bailey Univ of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, TX Andrew C Eisenhauer Brigham and Women Hospital, Boston, MS Saibal KarCedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA James Hermiller The Care Group, Indianapolis, IN Tanvir BajwaSt. Lukes Medical Center, Milwaukee, WI Vish BhoopalamNebraska Heart Institute, Lincoln, NE Andrew BerkeSt. Francis Hospital, Long Island, NY Tim ByrneBanner Good Samaritan Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ John CarrollUniversity of Colorado, Denver, CO Peter Fail Terrebonne General Medical Center, Houma, LA Eric Fretz Victoria Heart Institute Foundation, Victoria BC, Canada Paul GrayburnBaylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX Kenny Kent Washington Hospital Center, Washington DC Robert KippermanOklahoma Heart Hospital, Okalahoma City, OK John Lasala Washington University Medical Center, St. Louis, MO D. Scott LimUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA Reginald Low University of California at Davis, Sacramento, CA James Maddux/Mark SanzSt. Patrick's Hospital & Health Science Center, Missoula, MT Michael O'DonnellSt. Josephs Mercy Hospital, Ypsilanti, MI Wesley PedersenMinneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, MN Stephen R RameeOchsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA Eric Horlick Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada James Slater NYU Medical Center, New York, NY Andrew Wang Duke University, Durham, NC Brian WhisenantLatter Day Saints Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT Chiu Wong Cornell–Weill Medical Center, New York, NY Elyse Foster, Echocardiographic Core LaboratoryUniversity of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA Donald D Glower, EVEREST II Co-PI (Surgery)Duke University, Durham, NC EVEREST I & II EVEREST II ONLY