Impact of Tricuspid Regurgitation on Survival in Patients with Heart Failure: A Large Electronic Health Record Patient-Level Database Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: More evidence is needed to quantify the association between tricuspid regurgitation (TR) and mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2008-2017, using the Optum longitudinal database, a patient-level database that integrates multiple US-based electronic health and claim records from several health care providers, we identified 435 679 patients with new HF diagnosis and both an assessment of the left ventricular ejection fraction and at least 1 year of history. TR was graded as mild, moderate or severe and classified as prevalent (at the time of the initial HF diagnosis) or incident (subsequent new cases thereafter). For prevalent TR, the analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with adjustment for patient covariates. Incident TR was modelled as a time-updated covariate, as were other non-fatal events during follow-up. Prevalence of mild, moderate and severe TR at baseline was 10.1%, 5.1% and 1.4%, respectively. Over a median follow-up of 1.5 years, 121 273 patients (27.8%) died and prevalent TR was independently associated with survival. Compared to patients with no TR at baseline, the adjusted hazard ratios for mortality were 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-1.01], 1.17 (95% CI 1.14-1.20) and 1.34 (95% CI 1.28-1.39) for mild, moderate and severe TR, respectively. In the 363 270 patients free from TR at baseline, incident TR (at least mild, at least moderate, or severe) developed during follow-up in 12.1%, 5.1% and 1.1%, respectively. Adjusted mortality hazard ratios for such new cases were 1.48 (95% CI 1.44-1.52), 1.92 (95% CI 1.86-1.99) and 2.44 (95% CI 2.32-2.57), respectively. Findings were consistent across all patient subgroups based on age, gender, rhythm, associated comorbidities, prior cardiac surgery, B-type natriuretic peptide/N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and left ventricular ejection fraction. CONCLUSIONS: In this large contemporary patient-level database of almost half-million US patients with HF, TR was associated with a marked increases in mortality risk overall and in all subgroups. Future randomized controlled trials will evaluate the impact of TR correction on clinical outcomes and the causal relationship between TR and mortality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".