Abstract 2065: Uncorrected Moderate Tricuspid Regurgitation Impacts Late Survival In Patients Undergoing Mitral Valve Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Little is known regarding the evolution and clinical impact of moderate tricuspid regurgitation (TR) in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement (MVR). This natural history study was conducted to determine: the predictors of TR progression and the impact of TR progression on late survival. Methods: Between 1989 and 2005, 352 patients (mean age 63.5 ± 12.4y) who underwent mitral valve replacement with contemporary prostheses (mechanical/bioprostheses = 70%/30%) were followed for the evaluation of their concomitant tricuspid regurgitation (mean grade 2.0+ at mitral surgery). These patients did not undergo concomitant tricuspid valve repair or replacement. Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was performed in 34% of patients, with a mean of 2.1 grafts. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up was 100% complete and averaged 5.7 ± 3.9 years. Parametric and semi-parametric techniques were used to determine predictors of outcomes. Results: Thirty-day mortality was 2.2%. Postoperative progression of TR was noted in 36% of patients. Multivariate predictors of TR progression included female gender (odds ratio (OR) 10.3; p=0.03) and right ventricular systolic pressures ≥ 50 mmHg preoperatively (OR 8.1; p=0.05). Atrial fibrillation, concomitant CABG, the degree of preoperative mitral regurgitation, and mitral prosthesis size were not predictive of TR progression. TR progression in patients whose TR was 2+ or more at the time of initial surgery was associated with significantly decreased late survival (hazard ratio 3.7; p=0.05). Conclusions: Based on these data, it appears that if TR is not surgically corrected at time of MVR, it may progressively worsen over time in a sizable proportion of patients. In patients with TR 2+ or more at the time of MVR, TR progression is associated with decreased late survival. It therefore appears indicated to repair TR of grade 2+ or more at the time of mitral surgery, particularly in female patients and in patients with right ventricular systolic pressures of 50 mmHg or more, which are both predictive of postoperative TR progression.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".