Atrial Dysfunction in Significant Atrial Functional Mitral Regurgitation: Phenotypes and Prognostic Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Atrial functional mitral regurgitation (AFMR) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Left atrial (LA) size and function in AFMR are poorly characterized. We aimed to assess LA function by reservoir strain (LASr) and estimated reservoir work (LAWr) and their impact on outcome in AFMR. Methods: Consecutive patients at our institution between 2001 and 2019 and with significant (moderate or greater) AFMR were examined. LAWr was estimated as LASr×LA reservoir volume, and patients were grouped by median LASr and LAWr. Outcomes were all-cause death or heart failure hospitalizations. Results: Five hundred fifteen AFMR patients were followed up for 5 (1–17) years. Patients had previously documented atrial fibrillation (AF; 37%), heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) without AF (24%), or both (HFpEF+AF, 39%). LA volume was largest in AF, while LA function parameters were most impaired in the combined HFpEF+AF group. During follow-up, patients with low LASr or LAWr had higher risk of death ( P <0.001) and heart failure hospitalization ( P <0.05). In Cox regression analyses, low LASr and LAWr, but not LA volume or left ventricular function, were associated with a higher risk of death (LASr: hazard ratio, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.6–3.5]; LAWr: hazard ratio, 3.4 [95% CI, 2.4–4.9]; both P <0.001) after adjustment for clinical and echocardiographic confounders. Low LASr and LAWr were strongest associated with death in HFpEF and HFpEF+AF. Conclusions: LA reservoir function but not LA size is a robust predictor of outcome in significant AFMR. This provides mechanistic insights into the interplay of functional versus geometric LA changes in AFMR.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".