Mitral regurgitation in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both: prognostic significance and relation to ventricular size and function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Mitral regurgitation (MR) confers independent risk in patients with acute myocardial infarction. We utilized data from the VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion echo study to relate baseline MR to left ventricular (LV) size, shape, and function, and to assess the relationship between baseline MR and progression of MR and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 496 patients with heart failure (HF) and/or systolic dysfunction after MI who underwent echocardiography at a median of 5 days after MI. MR severity, quantified as the regurgitant jet area/left atrial area ratio, was assessed at baseline, one and 20 months post-MI and related to LV size, shape, function, and clinical outcomes. Increased MR at baseline was associated with larger LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes, increased sphericity index, and reduced ejection fraction (P trend < 0.001). Moderate-severe MR was an independent predictor of total mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.4 (1.1-5.3)], CV mortality [adjusted HR 2.7 (1.2-6.1)], hospitalization for HF [adjusted HR 2.5 (1.1-5.5)], or death or HF hospitalization [adjusted HR 2.5 (1.4-4.6)]. Patients with progression of MR during the first post-MI month were substantially more likely to die or develop HF (adjusted HR per increased MR grade 3.0, 95% CI 1.8-4.9). Progression of MR over 20 months in survivors was associated with increased hospitalizations for HF (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Following high-risk myocardial infarction, baseline mitral regurgitant severity is associated with larger LV volumes and worse LV function. Both baseline MR severity and progression of MR are associated with an increased likelihood of adverse outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".